Amendment No 1. is in the name of the Minister, but recommital is necessary in respect this amendment and the other related amendments as they do not arise from committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 217 and 218 are related and will be discussed together.
Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2023: Report and Final Stages
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 19, line 20, after “2000,” to insert “the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000,”.
As the House will be aware, the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023 was enacted in July this year following the restoration of the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016 from the last Dáil. It facilitates a reconfiguration of the raised bog network, provides for a biodiversity duty on public sector bodies and places the national biodiversity action plans on a statutory footing. I indicated to the Dáil on Report Stage of the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016 on 5 July this year that further technical changes were required to allow for the titles of Ministers in the Act to be changed. These are required so that this Act can be fully commenced. Under Oireachtas Standing Orders for restored Bills, these could only be accommodated under legislation introduced at a later date. The amendments of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023, now proposed, deal with these old ministerial titles. The wording for the Minister used in the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023 is "the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht". This reflects the historic title of the Minister with responsibility for heritage. However, the title of that Minister has changed since the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016 was first introduced and the function for heritage has been transferred to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage.
Amendment No. 218 will therefore change the title of the Minister in section 7 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023 from "Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht" to "Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage". Amendment No. 217 will remove altogether a reference to the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government in section 18A (7)(b) of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000, as inserted by the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023. This deals with the old ministerial title and also prevents a scenario whereby the Minister could be referring matters to him or herself. Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 will change the Long Title of the Bill to ensure it reflects the fact that it now deals with wildlife legislation, namely, the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023.
I am slightly confused. I understand what the Minister of State is doing in referring to the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023. He is inserting the name of the Act into the Long Title. Amendment No. 1 just seeks to insert "the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000" into the Long Title. There is no mention of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023 in the Long Title. Amendment No. 1 reads: "In page 19, line 20, after “2000,” to insert “the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000,”.", not the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023", which is covered by amendments Nos. 3, 217 and 218. I am just trying to figure out why the 2023 Act is not included in the text of amendment No.1.
Amendment No. 1 refers to the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 and amendment No. 3 refers to the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023.
Are we putting in two different amendments? Normally, we would just seek to insert the names of both Acts in one amendment, for example, in amendment No. 217 or 218, or something like that.
Presumably, there are two amendments because they relate to two different pieces of legislation.
It is two different lines, though. It is just odd. We are not opposed to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Amendment No. 2, in the name of the Minister, arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 2, 110 to 114, inclusive, 117 to 123, inclusive, and 203 are related. Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 11 and amendment No. 118 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 117. Amendments Nos. 2, 110 to 114, inclusive, 117 to 123, inclusive, and 203 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 19, line 21, after “2001,” where it secondly occurs to insert “the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011,”.
Amendment No. 2 updates the Long Title to take account of amendment No. 203 which I will come to shortly.
Amendment No. 110 updates the references in section 41(1) to include approved assessment notices alongside those that are already listed in the Bill relating to EIA notices. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Deputy Cian O’Callaghan, who raised a number of important matters during Committee Stage relating to the Aarhus Convention and section 41 of the Bill. Following discussions with senior counsel in the Office of the Attorney General, I am moving a number of amendments to section 41 in order to ensure the Bill is fully aligned with the Aarhus Convention and to ensure only a single judicial review regime will apply with respect to the issuing of licences under section 151.
Following discussions with senior counsel in the Office of the Attorney General, I will be moving a number of amendments to section 41 to ensure the Bill is fully aligned with the Aarhus Convention and that only a single judicial review regime will apply with respect to the issuing of licences under section 151.
Under Order 84 of the rules of the superior courts, judicial reviews of any administrative decision of a public authority are provided. The timeline for the institution of a judicial review under Order 84 is three months from the date of decision. As is the case regarding section 50A of the Planning and Development Act 2000, section 41 of the Bill modifies this time limit by reducing it to eight weeks. Importantly, this eight-week time period can be extended by the High Court under section 41(9). The purpose of the reduced time limit is to help ensure judicial reviews are instigated in advance of a licensable activity being carried out or completed.
It is in everyone's interest that any claimed legal faults regarding licensing decisions be brought before the courts for review at the earliest opportunity. This avoids situations where works, for example, urgent conservation works, are delayed pending the elapsing of a lengthy period for instigating a judicial review. It also means legal errors are identified and corrected at an early date rather than after licensed works are completed, when it would be too late to make any practical difference to how the works were carried out or whether they should have been carried out at all.
As part of our review of section 41, it was highlighted that the eight-week time limit would apply only to licence decisions that involve an environmental impact assessment, EIA, or appropriate assessment, AA. This would mean that, for non-EIA or non-AA cases, a judicial review would need to be taken under Order 84, and as a result a three-month time period would apply. It has therefore been determined that to avoid two judicial review regimes applying to licences granted under section 151, amendments Nos. 113, 121 and 123 are proposed to ensure section 41 judicial review provisions apply to all licence decisions and not just those involving an EIA or AA.
The wording "decision, act or omission", featured in amendments Nos. 112 and 120, is proposed to fully align the language used in the Bill with that used in Article 9.2 of the Aarhus Convention. Amendments Nos. 117 and 203 are proposed regarding section 41(6) of the Bill and section 4(4) of the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 to ensure the necessary costs protection provisions work as intended. In light of the judicial review amendments I intend to move today, I ask Deputies to consider withdrawing their corresponding amendments to section 41.
I want to address amendments Nos. 110 onwards. I thank the Minister of State for his contribution and for considering the issues I have raised. I thank him for taking these issues seriously, for the written response he gave to the committee on the proposals and for the effort to introduce amendments to address some of the issues I have raised in respect of section 41 and the need for an equivalent to section 160 of the Planning and Development Act, with clear cost protection in accordance with the Aarhus Convention. Given the limited time I have had to review this and consider the amendments in this constrained Report Stage debate, I urge the Minister of State to engage in a very open way on any outstanding issues of concern regarding access to justice rights when the Bill reverts to the Seanad and to engage in the interim to resolve these issues through his own amendments or to be open to considering further amendments to address these issues in the Seanad.
The Minister of State said in his written correspondence to the committee that it is in everyone’s interest that any claimed legal faults regarding licensing decisions be brought before the courts for review at the earliest opportunity and that legal flaws be identified and corrected at an early date rather than, possibly, after the licensed works have been completed. It would appear there are serious incorrect assertions in the written response given. In response to question 3, the Minister of State stated it should be noted that section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 applies only to planning matters concerning that Act. This is not disputed. However, the Minister of State’s response goes on to assert – incorrectly, I believe – that similar provisions do not appear in other administrative or legislative regimes. However, there are such provisions. For example, they are in section 57 of the Waste Management Act and in the Environmental Protection Agency Act.
The Minister of State also asserts that Article 9.3 does not require the replication of section 160 where a right to challenge exists. However, he has entirely failed to recognise that clear and proper implementation of Article 9.3 requires the characteristics for a review specified under Article 9.4 to be addressed. This Bill will not do this. This means there is no clear protection against prohibitive costs in such matters, being one of the characteristics required under Article 9.4 of the Aarhus Convention for Article 9.3 reviews. This raises the most serious concerns in respect of the approach considering the adequacy of provisions in this Bill on judicial review and Aarhus Conventions obligations and rights. I hope and trust that what I am outlining is not the Minister of State's intention.
With respect to the answer to question 4, related to the amendment to section 4(4) of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, I appreciate it acknowledges to some extent the concern raised in my question about the need to provide for cross-protection regarding the types of issues covered by the Act in addition to providing cover under section 50B of the Planning and Development Act, which works across sectors. However, the Minister of State, in simply proposing to modify section 4(4) of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to include relevant matters under this Bill, must be aware of the issues and how Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act provisions are being interpreted in a very limited way by the courts. Amendment No. 117, which would amend page 75, and amendment No. 203, which would amend page 189, will not suffice. It is a further indication - I refer to the Minister of State's response regarding question No. 5 - that the issues identified with respect to the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act provisions over five years ago by the European Court of Justice in response to questions 6 and 7 of the preliminary reference involved are no comfort. He indicates clearly when and how they are to be addressed. He refers to the Aarhus Bill, which has been promised since 2014 and has now diminished into the realm of myth, albeit marked as work under way in the legislative programme. He might comment on when we will see the Aarhus Bill. He also refers to the new planning Bill. It remains deeply disturbing that the review conducted by the former Attorney General concerning the Planning and Development Act entirely failed to address the correction to which I refer in the draft Planning and Development Bill 2022, published by the Government in January 2003, perhaps because it would have entailed correcting flaws that limited rights rather than limiting rights which the Bill does at length.
I am concerned that the Minister of State is choosing either not to amend the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act further or to reflect the necessary corrections by replicating it broadly with corrections. The assurances that it will be dealt with are welcome. However, it is unclear why the Minister of State has taken an entirely different approach to cost rules in section 50B and is prepared to tailor them. These are, in fact, being modified in a way that appears to be limiting. As drafted, the measure does not appear to allow for the judicial review of licences where there are flawed screening decisions for EIAs and AAs which the European Court of Justice has made abundantly clear must be provided with cost protection. It also seems to try to limit the extent of the challenge covered, which is likely to lead to preliminary reference issues like in the Enniskerry Alliance case.
It is imperative that more work be done. I acknowledge that some work has been done to address the issues with access to justice rights in this Bill. There are much simpler ways to address the changes required and support compliance with the Aarhus Convention and the high standard of environmental protection, including for historical and archaeological heritage, which we are collectively trying to ensure with this Bill. I am simply asking that the Minister of State will confirm that he will be open to such further work after this Stage.
The amendments in my name concern the issue of judicial review. That is a mechanism to have public oversight. It is a question of judicial oversight but it is usually a member of the public or an organisation that is concerned with an action that requires some type of oversight. We welcome the fact that changes have been made but I do not believe they go far enough. In fact, in some cases there is a further restriction on the availability of the recourse in question if decisions have been taken by a Minister. I am not referring to the Minister of State present because I am aware of the interest he has in heritage, but I know of Ministers who served here who did not have the same interest and who in many ways did not have the same concern with the actions they were authorising.
We are all far too well aware of the destruction of several of our historical and archeological sites. I appeal to the Minister of State to move away from trying to restrict the availability of this recourse and the overconcentration of the decision making in the power of the Minister. We will come to other areas where greater oversight is needed, even in this House, of ministerial decisions, on this subject or those being taken elsewhere. That is one of the reasons we have the format of the conventions being adopted or at least referred to in this legislation.
Amendment No. 111 was also proposed in the Seanad. It proposes to remove the subsection that prohibits the questioning of the validity of the act done by the Minister or the relevant licence granted, other than by judicial review. Perhaps in society we rush too quickly to judicial review, but that is usually because there is no other mechanism. A lot of money is spent in the four gold mines, as Phoenix calls them, that should not have to be spent there if there were appropriate and effective mechanisms for oversight of decisions. The Minister of State is correct that we need to have quick decisions. Whether on the subject of historical or archeological digs or otherwise, we do not want them to be held up in courts forever. Otherwise we will end up with cases like that of the Iveagh Market in Francis Street - which, in fairness, the Minister of State stood in, in recent weeks - which has been held up in courts for God knows how long and potentially could still be. At least Dublin City Council and the original owners have stood up to try to protect a gem. We should not have to go down that road. It might be delayed further, depending on the actions of those who believe they own the site. We have all seen cases end up in court and court cases drag on and on. Thankfully, judicial review is usually a fast-track way of dealing with something that could be delayed in court. However, in this Bill the Government has imposed quite a restrictive limit on the time within which a judicial review needs to be brought. It will be interesting to see whether the restriction stands the test of time. I know we are on Report Stage, but I ask that further consideration be given to whether this is the most appropriate mechanism to deal with this issue.
I thank Deputy O'Callaghan. These amendments were brought forward as a result of interaction on Committee Stage. The intention is to support the concerns he brought forward. We have taken the Attorney General's advice on it. It is important the eight-week period can be extended by the High Court. With these amendments, we have tried to give effect to the point Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised about decisions and ensuring urgent conservation works can still be carried out and are not delayed because of lengthy periods for instigating judicial reviews . I note Deputy O'Callaghan also mentioned the proposed Aarhus Convention Bill. My understanding is it is progressing in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and that it will deal with many of these issues. I have noted the points he made. If the Deputy requires further briefings or clarifications, we can organise them by way of assistance, if that is of any help.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I acknowledge that work has been done and that the concerns raised were listened to and worked on. I raised several issues. I thank the Minister of State for the offer of briefings. Given the legislative process that is ongoing, is the Minister of State still open to addressing those concerns in the remaining part of the process? Progress has been made but there are other issues that still need to be addressed.
Yes, I think we are. This is robust and I think it deals with the concerns the Deputy brought forward on Committee Stage. If something additional is required, we are open to discussing that.
There are several issues. I mentioned the tight timeframe. My amendment is to try to facilitate. Within two months of the Minister's action is a short period in which to put together the personnel, time and everything needed to produce a judicial review. Even the three months I suggested is minimal. It is what it is, if the Minister of State is adamant that he will pursue it. However, at the very least will the Government ensure civil society can have greater input or at least oversight of this? Amendments Nos. 119 and 122 deal with that aspect.
One of the issues I was not 100% sure what was meant by it is covered in amendment No. 118 where I propose the deletion of "with all necessary modifications". Surely the provisions would not require that. It is on page 75, line 25. It does not say what modifications or what existing legislation is being referred to. If the legislation is already modified, the reference to legislation is sufficient. Here "necessary modifications" has been added. It is strange.
The other points I made about judicial reviews still stand.
In response to amendment No. 111 proposed by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, given the discussion we have had and the amendments I brought forward to section 41, will the Deputy consider withdrawing some of the corresponding amendments? As I mentioned earlier, the amendments I proposed follow the advice of the Office of the Attorney General, arising from Deputy O'Callaghan's queries on Committee Stage. Amendment No. 111 proposes to redraft the wording of section 41(2), while maintaining the purpose of the provision. However, I have proposed that this subsection be redrafted to take account of the wording used in the Aarhus Convention and to ensure uniform cost-protection rules apply to all licences issued under section 151. Amendment No. 114 intends to delete standard judicial review provisions in section 41(3) which sets out who is entitled to apply for judicial review under the Bill. These requirements are necessary for the operation of the judicial review regime. I am unaware of any judicial review provisions on the Statute Book that exist without such requirements.
With regard to amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 122, I have already proposed amendments to sections 41(6), 41(7) and 41(8). These subsections provide for cost protection and set the eight-week time limit for bringing judicial reviews under the Bill. As I have already explained the rationale for these, I ask the Deputy to consider withdrawing amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 122.
In any event, unfortunately, I will not be in a position to accept them.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 3.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 19, line 22, to delete “and the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021” and substitute “the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 19, lines 27 and 28, to delete “Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023” and substitute “Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Heritage, National Monuments, and Miscellaneous Provisions 2023”.
This amendment in some ways goes back to the start. It proposes to change the Title of the Bill by deleting "Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions" and substituting "Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Heritage, National Monuments, and Miscellaneous Provisions". The key difference there is a recognition from the start, so there is no confusion, that we are dealing with cultural heritage and that it is specifically outlined that this is a national monuments Bill. The original Title, which I have here somewhere among my papers, referred to national monuments. I know we have gone through quite a long process with this. We should still look to ensure that people understand these are national monuments and that this is the legislation where one goes to address them. The Long Title starts "an Act to repeal the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 2014", so it is proposed to repeal something people understood in order to bring in, yes, a broader Title, but I just have a concern that it would get lost in time. Also, the National Monuments Service has been there for years, the books have been produced and there is the detail on the national monuments, yet it is not in the Title.
I will not delay the House on this - we have quite a job of work to get through - but the Title is often important when people are searching out which Bill deals with what. Yes, historic and archaeological heritage is referred to, but there is quite a lot of other heritage involved. Even through the definitions and so on, there is potentially artistic heritage, other cultural heritage and so on. They should be reflected at an early stage in the Bill for anybody perusing it.
The current Title of the Bill, as proposed by the Parliamentary Counsel, reflects the broad scope of the Bill while also focusing on a central element of the provisions contained therein.
The term "historic heritage", as defined in section 2 of the Bill, encompasses a wide range of different heritage areas and interests, and I cannot see why "cultural heritage" should be listed in the Title. To do so would give an impression that cultural heritage is somehow provided for in a way that goes over and beyond other aspects of historic heritage covered by the Bill, and that is not the case.
In contrast, "archaeological heritage" features in the Title because many central elements of the Bill have been developed in order that the proposed legislation will become the core legislative code for the archaeological sector. This includes provision for archaeological monuments, archaeological objects, archaeological excavations and archaeological inventories.
While we all know how important our national monuments are, within the overall scope of the Bill, provisions relating to national monuments are a relatively small element. For this reason a decision was made to move away from the term "monuments" in the Title of the Bill, to avoid it being too narrowly focused.
The addition of the term "Miscellaneous Provisions" in the Title is required following the addition of Part 13 to the Bill and the priority provisions contained therein.
I assure the Deputy that much thought and consideration have gone into this matter - we discussed it at length on Committee Stage - but for the reasons I have outlined I am unable to accept this amendment.
As I said, I will not delay the House, but continuity helps when dealing with legislation, and the addition of "Cultural Heritage" would have addressed all of what has now been proposed in the new Title. If, however, the Minister does not accept the amendment, I will at this stage withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 13, inclusive, 16, 19, 21 to 24, inclusive, 32, 133 and 137 to 139, inclusive, are related.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 21, to delete line 24 and substitute the following:
“ “Act of 2001” means, other than in Chapter 4 of Part 13, the Local Government Act 2001;”.
This is a technical amendment to provide for the amendment of the Valuation Act 2001 in Chapter 4 of Part 13 because the "Act of 2001" has a different meaning in that Chapter in comparison with the rest of the Bill.
As regards amendment No. 6, section 2 of the Bill, as it stands, contains a definition of "amenity value", which includes the setting of a monument or thing. "Amenity", however, is not itself defined, although it is used in section 14(4) of the Bill in relation to the delimitation of a "surrounding area" which can be added to an entry in the register and thereby becomes part of the registered monument in question.
Given the importance of ensuring that entries in the register of monuments can include such "surrounding areas" and that such areas will be able to appropriately protect the setting of the site or structure in question, I propose to make the meaning of "amenity" clearer by making it the term which is defined in section 2 of the Bill, with "amenity value" to be construed in accordance with the definition of "amenity". The new definition will make it clear that "amenity", and the plural "amenities" where it is used, includes the setting of a monument or thing. This will, I believe, make it even clearer that the Bill provides for the protection of the setting of sites and structures entered into the register.
Amendment No. 9 relates to the definition of an archaeological object under section 2 of the Bill and follows discussions that took place during Committee Stage and corresponding proposals to further define the meaning of an archaeological object by way of its association with "periods or subjects", in addition to "events or persons", as currently provided in the Bill.
Similarly, amendment No. 19 introduces "linguistic interest" into the definition of "cultural interest", and amendment No. 12 amends the definition of "architectural heritage" by replacing the word "ground" with "grounds". As regards the proposed addition of "context" into the definition of "architectural heritage", and following discussions with senior architects in my Department's built heritage policy unit, this is seen as problematic. The use of "context" has no existence in either planning legislation or any international charters and conventions, and its meaning is unclear.
The report of the church temporalities commission, as defined in section 63 of the Bill, and referenced in section 65 in relation to the vesting of certain burial grounds in Minister or local authority, was published in 1880, and the appendices to the report were subsequently published in 1881.
Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 are to update the years currently referred to in the Bill in order to ensure that the definition of the report is precise.
As regards amendment No. 7, and as discussed during Committee Stage, it is important to note that the term "archaeological heritage", as currently defined in the Bill, covers a very extensive set of structures, sites, objects, etc. It is more comprehensive than what would be provided under the Valletta Convention. Amending the Bill in the manner suggested in the amendment would greatly reduce the scope of what the Bill intends to provide for.
The definition as proposed does not specify that the sites and structures covered in the definition are to be of archaeological interest. While such a requirement could be implied, a more precise level of drafting is required, and this direct transposition of the definition used in the convention is simply not workable. Given that the current definition in the Bill not only covers the items that are set out in the definition found under the Valletta Convention but in fact goes beyond what is covered by the Valletta Convention, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.
As regards amendment No. 8, the definition of "archaeology" included in the Bill already makes clear that "archaeological interest" shall be construed in accordance with that definition. It is therefore already entirely clear that any person seeking to determine under the enacted legislation whether something is of archaeological interest must refer to the definition of archaeology. That is the appropriate way to determine whether something is of archaeological interest. The proposed amendment of "archaeological interest" by way of amendment No. 8 is unworkable as drafted. It does not provide guidance as to how to determine interest; it merely states that archaeological interest means certain objects. This is the wrong approach as physical things have an interest or are of a particular interest; they cannot be the particular interest in and of themselves.
As regards amendment No. 10, I have already proposed an amendment to the definition of "archaeological object" which I hope encompasses to a large extent that which is sought by amendment No. 10, so I ask the Deputy to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 11 intends to introduce the definition of an "archaeological reserve" into the Bill. As explained on Committee Stage, this concept is already merged with the register of monuments. The definition of “relevant thing” includes any ritual or ceremonial site, a site where an historic place took place, any site with legendary or mythological associations, and features, deposits or layers of natural origin providing information or evidence relating to the past environment.
If a "relevant thing" is of archaeological, architectural, cultural or historic interest, it can be considered eligible for entry in the register of monuments. No limitations appear in the Bill regarding the size or parameters of sites or locations. The Bill also makes it explicitly clear under section 8(2) that “a reference in this Part to a relevant thing of a relevant interest includes a reference to a site where the Minister reasonably believes that there may be a relevant thing of a relevant interest”.
On amendment No. 13, as I mentioned previously, the definition of “architectural heritage” has been discussed with my Department’s built heritage policy unit and the addition of “context” into the definition of “architectural heritage” is problematic, as the use of “context” has no existence in planning legislation, nor in any international charters or conventions. Again, I would ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment.
On amendment No. 16, as mentioned in discussions on Committee Stage, I see no good reason to delete the definition of the “Church Temporalities Commission”. I intend to update the definition following my earlier proposed amendment. Reference to that commission and its report must be made in the Bill given that Chapter 13 of Part 2 addresses the legal standing of certain historic burial grounds which were once in the ownership of that commission. The definition in Part 2 allows for a somewhat less lengthy title to be used in the Bill when referring to the commission than the legal title it had under the relevant 19th-century legislation, so aiding readers of the Bill.
I will now deal with amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive. On amendment No. 21, as discussed previously, the amendment to the definition of “history”, as proposed, would, first, introduce a lengthy list of terms that is considered to be excessive and overly granular for its intended purpose. While I appreciate the Deputy's intention to ensure the term “history” has a sufficiently broad scope, the amendment is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. Turning to amendment No. 22, the use of the word “includes” in the current definition of “history” also provides for what is being sought by the additions of the words “but is not limited to”.
Finally, the use of the word “and” as suggested in amendment No. 23 would not be acceptable from a drafting perspective. If accepted, it would mean that all the terms used to define “history” would need to be satisfied in order for the definition to be met. The use of the word “or” allows for any one of the terms listed to meet the definition and ensure they are entirely independent of each other. For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.
As discussed previously, amendment No. 24 would overextend the definition of “immediate surroundings” and create uncertainty regarding the exact scope of the corresponding criminal offence, that being the carrying out of works in the immediate surroundings of a monument without a licence or without having given notice. If the scope of the offence is insufficiently clear, it is likely to be unenforceable or even at risk of being ruled as invalid. Again, I cannot support that amendment.
On amendment No. 32, the current definition of “traditional interest” is considered adequate, and I ask the Deputy to note that I have already introduced an amendment to incorporate "linguistic interest" into the term "cultural interest". Information relating to the use and interpretation of the terms "traditional interest" and "cultural interest" will be provided in the codes of practice established under section 213 of the Bill. I would see these codes as setting out the additional detail that seeks to be introduced by way of this amendment.
On amendment No. 133, section 57 relates to an ancient monument or a national monument within the meaning of the Irish Land Act 1903. This goes beyond a drafting matter as the terminology in the Bill needs to be retained, as it is a direct reference to orders made under section 14(3) of the 1903 Act. Again, I would ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment.
Finally, on amendment No. 137, Chapter 12 of Part 2 of the Bill contains transitional provisions that have been introduced specifically for burial grounds, the existence of which has always been known and title to which was held by the then Established Church prior to its disestablishment in 1869. Following its disestablishment, title for the burial grounds was devolved through a complex chain or was otherwise left unclear. The purpose of these transitional provisions is to simplify the chain of title with a view to facilitating effective management and protection under the enacted Bill for the long term. The proposed amendment relates to the defined term for a “relevant burial ground” and is used in section 66, which contains technical provisions to supplement sections 64 and 65. It provides that where the fee simple in a relevant burial ground is vested in the Minister or local authority and that burial ground is a registered monument, the burial ground shall become a registered monument in the ownership of the Minister or local authority for the purposes of the enacted Bill. Newly discovered burial grounds are to be dealt with by the usual provisions relating to the monuments and there is no need to attempt to provide for them within this Chapter. Again, I ask the Deputy to consider withdrawing this amendment.
The Minister of State has gone considerably over time but there were a lot of amendments grouped together. We will make up some time.
We will try to make up some time.
The Deputy will get his seven minutes.
Yes, I understand. We will start at the start, as they say. These amendments are attempts by me to lay out definitions of archaeological heritage, archaeological interest and archaeological reserves. They are attempts to try to reflect. When people look at a piece of legislation, they turn to the definitions to see what is covered. In looking at what is covered, these are attempts to show that, in some ways, there are gaps. There is a requirement for us to be very clear in what we are trying to do. The Minister of State said there would be a need to redraft even the amendments I have put down, but that not even acknowledgment that there is a value to some of the concepts included in those amendments, in particular in amendments Nos. 7 and 8, where we are talking about "archaeological heritage" including "structures, constructions, groups of buildings, developed sites, moveable objects". It is a definition that is quite clear and easy to understand. The same goes for what "archaeological interest" is, in that it means objects, structures, sites and what not. It tries to ensure the protections the conventions give are quite clear in this legislation, and that at an early stage, we have set out the protection required and what is protecting them. I am talking about the Valletta Convention in particular, and the archaeological reserves there. That is amendment No. 11.
We will then turn to amendment No. 13, and that is to include surrounding grounds. I was interested in this. Later on, there is another amendment dealing with "context". It is in this grouping and it deals with the context of archaeological objects or heritage. Context is very important in all of this and one of the failings we have had over the years is that context has not been given its due respect. That is why it has been easy, in some ways, for some of the destruction we have seen to go ahead because context was not laid out and defined. There was no attempt to define that context.
I have gone back over Men Who Eat Ringforts, the book by Sinéad Mercer. There are other features in it as well but that lays out all of the ringforts that have been destroyed over the years. It is an absolutely fantastic book and an easy read. One would just pick it up and read it from cover to cover. It details how we have lost 30,000 monuments throughout our history. It is not all down to us modern people wrecking the place, or farmers or anything else. Some of them disappeared for other reasons.
In the main, however, the book sets out what we have done in recent times and how our monuments have disappeared. We understand the purpose of this Bill is to try to give those protections and that is why we will not be opposing it. All our attempts are designed to make it stronger and to give greater protection so future generations can benefit from what we are doing here today. We are trying to ensure we do not have the liosanna around the country where the shapeshifters, as they were called, the sióga, lived. We are trying to ensure protection so that once again, the next generation understands that the shapes of our country are defined not only by our historical and archaeological heritage but also by our natural heritage. If people understood that, they might be making films like "Guardians of the Galaxy" about Ireland. We have so much history and mythology that we could make many such films. Either Ms Mercier in her book or someone else I was talking to recently told me that during the Covid-19 pandemic, people got a greater appreciation of these things. Any amendments I have submitted are an attempt to ensure we have the best and clearest protections. I am not inclined to withdraw any of the amendments that the Minister of State has mentioned to date. On amendment No. 23, I can understand the point because it is a technical amendment that I would have no problem withdrawing. It deals with whether the Bill should include an "and", an "or" or both together. I concede on that amendment. However, I think we need to go a lot further in our definitions in this legislation.
I will come in on this group of amendments. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh has said, these relate, for the most part, to definitional issues in the Bill. It is important in such an important overhaul of the National Monuments Acts that we would see clarity of definitions. Government amendment No. 6 in this group provides a more contextual definition of "amenity". I welcome that. It is similar, in many ways, to our amendment No. 28 in the next group, which would include reference to "landscape". We need that broader understanding of cultural heritage.
We in the Labour Party are keen to support the Bill although we want to ensure it has clarity of definitions throughout and can be amended to enable the reflection of international standards to ensure the highest possible protection of our heritage. As my colleague, Deputy Duncan Smith, said on Second Stage, we have a chequered history of heritage protection. I am thinking of sites such as Wood Quay, which was shamefully destroyed. I am thinking too of Iveagh Markets, close to my own area, on which issue I was glad to see the Minister of State's intervention. I am also thinking of Rathmines town hall about which the Minister of State and I have spoken before. It is important that we relate back to the original vision of our now President Michael D. Higgins on his introduction of the Heritage Act in the 1990s, which was to ensure that we have updated definitions and real clarity around what we are protecting, and to ensure the highest possible level of protection. While we are protecting amenities, monuments and things, we must, as the Minister of State said, include the setting of the monument. Our amendment No. 28 intends to ensure we are also protecting landscapes and ensuring the landscape itself can be understood as requiring protection. Too often in the past, we have seen monuments as discrete entities in the landscape rather than understanding that the landscape itself is a hugely important part of our heritage.
I support Deputy Ó Snodaigh's attempts to ensure there is clarity of definition and that we have the broadest possible protection of our heritage in this group of amendments.
I again thank Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Bacik for their contributions. By way of reassurance on a point made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, I note the fantastic work we have put in so far in our attempts to make this Bill stronger. Deputy Ó Snodaigh has done that. The Government has taken on board many of the proposals he has brought forward through our own amendments. In fact, the majority of our amendments are to give effect to addressing the concerns and points raised by Deputies and Senators. Deputy Ó Snodaigh has certainly brought great strength to this legislation.
The point around context and surrounding areas that Deputy Bacik raised is critically important. The fact that the determination of a surrounding area can be added to a register is important to the issue of terminology in terms of context not having any relation to the planning Bill. If the Deputy can accept that, it is the case.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh spoke about Sinéad Mercier's publication, which I was not aware of and I would be interested in getting a copy from him. This Bill goes beyond that which has been set out in the Valletta and Unidroit Conventions. If anything, such conventions are framed in a very vague way to make them internationally acceptable. What we have done here is very specific. I am proud that what we are doing with this Bill will go beyond what is required in the Valletta Convention.
As Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, Sinn Féin will not be opposing the Bill. We all have a duty to protect our heritage and history. That is why the Deputy and others in opposition have put in amendments. The disappointing thing here is the same as it was on Committee Stage. The Government does not seem to be prepared to accept any amendments to improve anything from this side of the House. It seems to have a policy that it will reject anything that comes from this side of the House.
I will speak to amendment No. 24 and, in particular, I want to discuss the integrity of historical structures. I will also speak to the provisions that will be made to ensure any works that could affect the integrity of a monument's context are covered by the requirements for licences. I live in Cashel and nobody needs to be told about the archaeological heritage we have, especially around the Rock of Cashel and its environs. What we see when we look at the Rock of Cashel is only part of the estate. The lands adjacent to it are an important feature of the overall archaeological complex built with the rock. It is not just composed of features above the ground but also of the archaeological resources believed to exist underneath these lands. That is an important factor to note when we are interested in developing adjacent to our heritage sites. Therefore, I favour measures that seek to enshrine in legislation the protections against developments that may cause damage to historical monuments whether the sites are partly seen or unseen. Certifiable evidence must be provided, following on from thorough investigation by independent experts, to verify whether such damage is likely. I understand this is separate to the additional issue of appropriate developments and so on. That is a separate matter. I am grateful for the opportunity to mention those issues.
I thank the Minister of State for his comments. I wish to speak to a particular amendment and I am trying to figure out which one it is. When they are grouped like this, it makes it difficult to keep track of everything. It is the amendment that includes a definition of-----
Does it include the definition of "archaeological object"?
-----the "church temporalities commission". The definition is in the Bill twice. There is a definition in, I think, section 3. There are also definitions under Chapter 13. There is no need for the definition to be there twice. I am not opposed to it but it is odd that the definition is included at the start of the Bill for something that is not referenced at all until Chapter 13, which contains a definition of the "report of the church temporalities commission". There might be some technical reason for that.
The Minister of State answered the query we had about discovered burial grounds and so on. Part of the intention of that amendment is to ensure that not only some burial grounds got those protections.
In respect of the other amendments, I am still inclined to make the definitions as great and explicit as possible so there is no cover to allow somebody to say a particular archaeological find, site or object does not fall within the protections this Bill is granting.
That is the intention and it is not to undermine the Bill and I acknowledge the Minister of State has moved on some of the issues from the early prelegislative scrutiny. He did not take on all of the amendments because my amendment No. 11, is based on recommendation 9 of the original prelegislative scrutiny recommendations.
I will probably voice vote the other amendments rather than putting them to a full vote when we reach them way into the future in this debate. I believe we need greater definitions.
I refer to the points raised by Deputy Browne and, as I said earlier, it is not the case that we have not taken on board the amendments brought forward by the Opposition. We have improved and used the concerns brought forward by those amendments and put them in with their own amendments. The majority of the amendments we are putting forward are to give effect to concerns and issues which have been brought forward on Committee Stage by Deputies. We have, with all due respect, given effect to that in trying to take on board the issues raised by Deputies in the past. That is largely what we are bringing forward here this evening.
Specifically, in respect of Cashel, the Deputy raised the issue of the surrounding area and Cashel is an important international site and it enjoys a very strong level of protection.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised the issue again of the Church Temporalities Commission. That definition needs to be updated following an earlier proposed amendment and if I may read this out again:
Reference to that Commission and its Report must be made in the Bill given that Chapter 13 of Part 2 addresses the legal standing of certain historic burial grounds which were once in the ownership of that Commission. The definition in Part 2 allows for a somewhat less lengthy title to be used in the Bill when referring to the Commission than the legal title it had under the relevant 19th century legislation, [that is just to aid] readers of the Bill.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Amendment agreed to.
Just in case there is confusion, and for the information of people generally, the proposer of an amendment can come in a third time. It is seven minutes and two minutes for everybody else. Anybody can speak to an amendment and a Member’s name does not have to be down to do this as long as he or she indicates.
It is difficult.
Yes, there was quite a number there. We are at amendment No. 6 now, which has been already discussed and there is no more discussion on the next series of amendments. Does the Minister of State wish to move amendment No. 6?
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 21, to delete lines 28 and 29 and substitute the following:
“ “amenity”, in relation to a monument or thing, includes the setting of the monument or thing, and “amenity value” shall be construed accordingly;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 22, to delete lines 5 and 6 and substitute the following:
“ “archaeological heritage” shall include structures, constructions, groups of buildings, developed sites, moveable objects, monuments of other kinds, as well as their context, whether situated on land or under water;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 22, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“ “archaeological interest” means objects, sites, structures and other items associated with historic and cultural heritage;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 22, line 22, after “event” to insert “, period, subject”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 22, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“ “archaeological reserves” has the same meaning as it has in Article 2(i) & (ii), and Article 4(i) of the Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage of Europe adopted at Valletta on 16 January 1992 and ratified by Dáil Éireann in 1997;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 22, line 36, to delete “ground” and substitute “grounds”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13 :
In page 22, line 37, after “fittings,” to insert “and surrounding contexts,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
We now reach amendment No. 14 in the name of the Minister. Amendments No. 14 and amendments Nos. 28 to 31, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 30 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 29. Amendments No. 14 and and amendments Nos. 28 to 31, inclusive, will be discussed together. Glaoim ar an Aire Stáit labhairt anois.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I move amendment No. 14:
In page 23, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“ “battlefield” includes—
(a) any area or areas (to the extent (if any) that it or they can be both identified and geographically defined) where the majority of the combat (including any
significant military engagement) or related activities of a battle took place, and
(b) any sites or places directly associated with the conduct, command or direction of a battle (including any significant military engagement) or related
activities of a battle, whether or not contiguous with or to an area or areas referred to in paragraph (a);.
Amendment No. 14 introduces the definition of a "battlefield" for the purposes of amending the definition of a "relevant thing" by way of amendment No. 31, to include any battlefield in the list of the different sites and structures under the definition of "relevant thing". This amendment follows the discussions during the Committee Stage on this matter and I once again want to thank Deputies for their views which have been taken on board.
Amendment No. 29 follows a Committee Stage proposal to broaden the definition of a "relevant thing" by not only providing for a site where a historic event took place but also any other site directly associated with that historic event.
On amendment No. 28 from Deputies Bacik and Duncan Smith, while the intention of this proposed amendment may be to ensure that wider areas can be entered into the Register of Monuments, what is set out is not necessarily appropriate in drafting terms. The reason for this is that the opening paragraph of the definition of "relevant thing" merely ensures the thing listed in the following paragraphs comes within the scope of the definition of "relevant thing", no matter where they are situated. The text as it stands clearly achieves that, particularly once the wide scope of the definition of "land" is taken into consideration. Again, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.
On amendment No. 38 in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh, I hope the Deputy will consider withdrawing this amendment given that the amendment I have already proposed on sites where historic events have taken place, so that other sites directly associated with that historic event are now also in the scope. Gabhaim buíochas.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and she will be aware that I am deputising for Deputies Bacik and Duncan Smith on this one. I will speak to amendment No. 28. An overhaul of the National Monuments Acts, 1930-2014, has been in development for more than a decade and represents an opportunity for a truly visionary and clear piece of legislation. The Bill is welcome insofar as it goes some way towards achieving this aim. It needs further clarification and amendment, however, to enable its proper functioning and to reflect international standards, notwithstanding what the Minister of State has said in respect of his response to amendment No. 28.
Our first amendment seeks to amend the definition of "relevant thing" in section 2, the definition section. At present "relevant thing" can mean a relevant structure, feature, site, and so on: "whether situated on, in or under land". This definition fails to appreciate that the landscape itself may be of relevance. Cultural landscapes are absent from the Bill.
There appears to be no provision for landscapes to be designated as either prescribed or registered monuments. This seems to be in contrast with the previous general scheme which provided an approach more in line with the Valetta Convention. There seems instead to be an assumption in the Bill that monuments are discrete entities in the landscape as opposed to possibly comprising certain landscapes themselves. World heritage categories include the category of cultural landscapes. If there was in future a world heritage designation of an Irish cultural landscape there would need to be a corresponding provision in Irish law to safeguard such a designation. In addition, Article 5 of the European Landscape Convention, to which Ireland is party, obliges each state to "recognise landscape in law as an essential component of people's surroundings, an expression of the diversity of their shared cultural and natural heritage and as a foundation of their identity." Our amendment seeks to address this omission by providing that landscapes can be included among "relevant things" under the Bill.
Deputy Sherlock may be deputising but he certainly explained those issues very well and quite comprehensively. I will turn in a moment to amendment No. 28 about landscape but first I will speak about amendment No.14. It was said in the Chamber just a few minutes ago that the Government is not engaging with amendments and is not listening. That is not the case. I have often found it to be so in legislation but it certainly is not the case here. The Government has been engaging and listening to the concerns that we have been raising and it has been bringing forward amendments to address some of those issues. There is some progress being made. It is certainly not as much as I would like but I want to acknowledge that cooperation. Unfortunately, it is a rarity but it is happening now.
Amendment No.14 regarding battlefields is welcome and is helpful and we are going in the right direction. Will the Minister of State confirm, given this amendment, that all the battlefield sites that are identified and mapped as part of the Department's Irish battlefields project will be included in the forthcoming revision of the record of monuments and places? If the battlefield project has identified and mapped certain battlefields will the Minister of State, given the wording of this amendment, guarantee that these sites will be delineated as such in the forthcoming updating of the record of monuments and places? This is a key question. The Department initiated the Irish battlefields project, the aim of which was to map a number of key battle sites. This work was completed and these delineated sites would have acted as perfect templates for more a comprehensive inventory. Therefore, the Minister of State actually has maps with delineated archaeological areas at his disposal. Why have these delineated areas not informed and appeared in the Bill? The Irish battlefields project proved that this can be done. Given that the Department commissioned this work, we really have to ask the question why we are not seeing a proper follow through of this work in terms of legislation? Will the Minister of State produce copies of this project for us as Dáil Members?
I fully support amendment No. 28. I understand the protection afforded to the individual monuments in protected zones under this Bill but under which aspect of the Bill is there a protection for the intervening lands where there are not monuments as defined or considered under this Bill? How is this relevant? For example, if Ireland was going to approach UNESCO with an application for the passage tomb landscape of County Sligo, how could we do that when archaeological landscapes do not enjoy protection in this Bill?
I will withdraw amendment No. 48. In doing so I am acknowledging that the Minister of State has addressed the concerns that have been raised at different stages of this legislation by identifying one of the key features of our historical and archaeological landscape. People will associate it with some of the battlefields sites that are more contemporary but there are older battlefield sites that we could have done a lot more to protect or at least give some kind of recognition to, even in this city. In Clontarf, for example, there is not much left of the landscape that was there but that is not to say that we should not do a lot more. There are battlefield sites outside of the capital also. We have had the argument around the battlefield site in Moore Street and all that it is connected with. I will not rehash all of that. Are the additional protections that we are granting those national monuments retrospective? In the case of Moore Street, there are planning applications before An Bord Pleanála at the moment which will interfere with what is left of the Moore Street area and that key battlefield site. There is also the question as to what the OPW will do with the GPO itself now that the vast majority of it is vacated, with An Post moving down the Quays. The post office is still in situ so that is a question not necessarily for this piece of legislation. I am asking whether this is retrospective and whether we afford it that additional protection at this stage.
Some people looking at this will see that in passing this legislation, we are giving protection and greater awareness of the context. It is back to this context that a battlefield site is not just a small cross or a plaque on the wall. Almost too long ago for me to remember, some 40 years ago, I travelled to the battlefield site in Ridgeway in Canada. This was the site of famous battle between Fenians who had crossed over into Canada and taken on the Canadian militia. They intended to hold the Canadian territories that the British held at the time as ransom for the freedom of Ireland. Canada got its freedom at that stage but Ireland did not. The site was laid out as a battlefield. They had protected where the battle had taken place and they had restored where the injured from the battle lay. In recent times there is much more cultural and historical tourism, so it is not only our own people who visit the sites but also people from abroad. Given our history of immigration, there is not just an archaeological benefit and awareness. We can also benefit financially sometimes from the protections we grant, where we leave the context intact. In this way, people can come and imagine what things were like 100 or 1,000 years ago. It allows the stories to be told in whatever way they can be. History is history, so the Irish did not win all of the battles. Some of those battlefields where the Irish lost need to be protected as well and remembered in the same way. In fact, we lost most of the battles in Ireland. However it is part of our history and we need to protect it, so that is why I give full recognition to what is being proposed in this amendment. Hopefully it will have the desired effect.
I will first respond to Deputy Sherlock's initial query in relation to landscapes and the Labour Party amendment. The landscape designation is provided for in the planning and development legislation. The Deputy mentioned specifically the Valetta Convention and there is no mention of landscape in the convention.
What we are doing here provides extra protection for surrounding areas as well.
Amendment No. 28 confuses two separate things: the locations where monuments can be and what can be monuments. There is that distinction there that I think we are not sure of.
Deputy Cian O'Callaghan spoke about the Irish battlefield project, which was a wonderful project. Obviously, we cannot anticipate what would be brought forward via the record. The Bill cannot be prescriptive in listings sites. However, the new register will cover battlefields but we would need to review particular boundaries before entry into the register. I can give that assurance. Section 14 already enables wide areas to be included in the register. Adding the battlefields, which Deputies sought on Committee Stage, is a novel element of the Bill and is to be welcomed.
In response to the issues Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised, I will not go into specifics on the future of the GPO which is a protected structure anyway. I absolutely agree with the Deputy's contention about cultural tourism and the importance and significance of these sites. That is why we are giving due recognition to it in this Bill.
In his further response, I implore the Minister of State to clarify for me because I did not quite understand his point in respect to how our amendment is confusing. He might just expand on the second part. I did not quite understand the point the Minister of State made in saying that it is provided for in the Planning and Development Act. I ask him to expand further on that to assist my understanding. I did not quite understand the second point that the Minister of State made about the confusion that arises with the wording of amendment No. 28.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. On the battlefields project, I accept he cannot definitively tell me whether the revision of the record of monuments and places will cover all those battlefields.
Will that substantial piece of work, the lines on maps that we talked about at length on Committee Stage, just sit there now that it is done or will it inform these revisions? Will it be acted on? I appreciate the Minister of State cannot give me a definitive commitment that every battlefield in that will be mapped out and recognised in the record of monuments and places. However, will it be seriously used to inform that which would then give some practical meaning to amendment No. 14 which the Minister of State has introduced here after engaging with us on Committee Stage on this?
I said there were very few battles that we won but there are some. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, when he was here, would have mentioned the Battle of Clontibret when the Elizabethan army under Henry Bagenal was well hammered by the O'Neills in County Monaghan. It is an acknowledgement because it plays a role especially in a rural area. In a city it is buildings and so on. The Labour Party amendment refers to landscape in respect of battlefields. That can be interfered with in substantial ways by the modern construction of motorways, other roads or town development. In recent times it is the windmills that we are sticking up around the country. It is not that I am opposed to them; we need a lot more. However, we need to bear in mind the context when those plans go ahead. Just because the land is sometimes seen as cash cow, it should not always be seen as that because it has the context of all of our years of occupation of that land. I welcome the definition of "battlefield" and I support the Labour Party amendment on the landscape.
I apologise to Deputy Sherlock if I have caused confusion by my confusion. Amendment No. 28 deals with landscape. As I said, landscape designation areas are already in the Planning and Development Act - I think it is section 274. Amendment No. 28 deals with locations, landscape areas, where a monument could be located rather than the monuments themselves which the Bill intends to protect. I hope that clears that up. There is already a level of protection for landscapes in the planning and development legislation, which achieves what the Deputy is setting out to achieve under amendment No. 28. As I said, it is not referenced in the Valletta Convention in any event.
In response to Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, the results of the battlefield project are now being prepared for publication and they will be used in the new register as proposed. I can give confirmation on that. The registration process is a process it needs to go through in terms of determination of that. However, it is a really valuable piece of research which will help inform the register.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 15, 17, 18, 20, 51, 159, 171, 172 and 195 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 23, to delete line 7 and substitute the following:
“ “Bord” means Bord Ard-Mhusaem na hÉireann;”.
We discussed this on Committee Stage. This relates to the titles of the various bodies, bord Ard-Mhúsaem na hÉireann, chun go mbeadh "na Coimisinéirí" úsáidte agus go mbeadh an bunteideal Gaeilge úsáidte mar atá i gceist anois de réir Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla and that we give effect in all legislation to a recognition of the primary or the legal title of State bodies. That is the intention of the Official Languages Act. When we started drafting this legislation way back in the past, the Act had not taken all its legal steps. As far as I know, all aspects of the Act have now passed. The proper way for any future legislation is to give the official Irish language title of State bodies, not the one which is referenced as "also in the English language". That is the intention of these amendments.
At this stage, Chomhairle Oidhreachta is the legal title of that which is referred to as the Heritage Council and it is the same with the Department heads. We need to reflect that in legislation. I think I picked out most of them that need to be changed in the amendments I tabled.
As I stated on Committee Stage, I fully endorse and support every effort to promote the use and status of the Irish language. My officials engaged with the Parliamentary Counsel on this matter. The approach considered under amendments Nos. 15, 17, 18, 20, 51 and 159 is, unfortunately, considered to be most unorthodox and introduces legal risks and discrepancies across the Statute Book. Given the concerns raised and the lack of time available to delve more deeply into these issues, I must adhere to the existing legal provisions regarding the names of other State bodies by using the English language version of the title in the English language version of the Bill. The Irish language version of the titles will of course be used in the Irish language version of the Bill.
Regarding amendment No. 51 in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh, the details of the particulars to be included in entries in the register should, within the bounds and directives set out in Bill, remain flexible and a matter of administrative practice which will likely evolve over time as necessary. The proposed amendment refers to names of monuments, but while some monuments have traditional names attached to them, most do not and may have been completely unknown prior to discovery through modern research. Also, the level and form of information regarding placenames to be included within the register requires flexibility. There will, for example, be entries in the register of monuments located in our coastal waters. Accordingly, I must oppose the amendment, though I can assure the Deputy that appropriate use of both official languages will be a top priority for me in the establishment of the register.
On amendment No. 172 in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh, I thank the Deputy for this proposal. I intend to bring forward a corresponding amendment to section 148 to provide for what is proposed here. For this reason I ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment.
On amendments Nos. 171 and 195, amendment No. 171 provides that warnings relating to the use and possession of a detection device in the State will be in both Irish and English. Similarly, amendment No. 195 provides that signage that may be erected at monuments will be in both languages also.
It was remiss of me. I meant to say that, given the Minister of State has, in amendment No. 171, addressed the point of amendment No. 172, I will withdraw it, but obviously I can do it later on. I take on board the commitment relating to the Irish language. The problem is the length of time it has taken for this legislation to appear. I was first elected in 2002. The first mention of this was in 2004 or maybe even before that. I am concerned that if we leave issues, it will drag on. The intention of the State is that we move towards proper recognition of the Irish language as the first language. I am happy that the Minister of State has given that commitment as we move forward and when the opportunity appears. I thought this was the opportunity to start that process. Reluctantly, I am willing to accept this.
I know the Minister of State's commitment but wonder about the Department's commitment. The Irish language should always have been to the fore. It was not. The Heritage Council should never have existed as the Heritage Council but it did because there was a whole period from the 1970s up to recent years where the State changed totally. One only needs to look at Córas Iompair Éireann, CIÉ. All of a sudden, we have Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, and stuff like that. There was no need for it but people thought we would modernise Ireland and reject what was intended with regard to Irish titles for sites. There are periods where maybe people do not know the name but there was always an Irish name. We had a lecture on placenames, logainmneacha. If one digs it out, there is a name for even the corner field somewhere. It is just a matter of finding it. The same goes for our history and archaeology. There are titles. They might not always be Irish. They could be Viking as well.
I appreciate the concerns brought forward by the Deputy on this. There has been inconsistency. I appreciate the fact the Deputy accepts the Government's intention on this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 23, to delete lines 14 and 15.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 23, to delete line 18 and substitute “ “Coimisinéirí” means Coimisinéirí na nOibreacha Poiblí, also known as Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 23, to delete lines 26 and 27 and substitute the following:
“ “Comhairle” means the body established by section 5 of the Act of 1995 and known as An Chomhairle Oidhreachta;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 23, line 28, after “literary” to insert “, linguistic”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 23, to delete line 29 and substitute the following:
“ “Roinn” means An Roinn Tithíochta, Rialtais Áitiúil agus Oidhreachta;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 25, to delete lines 28 and 29 and substitute the following:
“ “history” includes, but is not limited to, ancient, archaeological, architectural, art, biographical, culinary, cultural, diplomatic, economic, educational, environmental, intellectual, military, natural, philosophical, political, religious, revolutionary, scientific, social, sport, technical, technological and women’s history;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 25, line 28, after “includes” to insert “, but is not limited to,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 25, line 29, to delete “or” and substitute “and”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 25, after line 36, to insert the following:
“(c) or the integrity of its context;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 71 and 72 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 27, line 17, after “State,” to insert “among the five most read newspapers,”.
Déanann leasuithe Uimh. 25 agus Uimh. 26 ach go háirithe, ach Uimh. 71 agus Uimh. 72 chomh maith, cinnte de go mbeadh nuachtán náisiúnta i gceist. This is to ensure that only hard copy national newspapers with a readership among the top five most read are considered effective in delivering notice to the public. We have a problem in that there are so many newspapers and so many are national. There could be a national newspaper which has very limited readership. We need to make sure that when notices are being issued, if we are to use the national newspaper as the guide for readership, we need to make sure it has as wide a reach as possible. For instance, people would presume that The Irish Times and Irish Independent have the biggest readership. There are other newspapers but we need to have some type of measure. The ABC circulation may be one of the measures by which we can easily ensure the notices under this legislation reach the greatest possible audience, if that is the appropriate terminology, and the greatest number of the public.
Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 are to ensure the public is given notice of the registry. Currently, only one of the three ways of giving notice is necessary. The current position would allow the Minister to give notice to a landowner under paragraph (a) and not inform the public. Maybe the Minister of State can look at that. In amendment No. 71, we are saying that two of the three ways possible would be necessary, so it is not just the landowner getting the notification.
Amendment No. 72 outlines a requirement for a notice to be put in local media, where they exist, as well as at least one national newspaper. This is not really the case in Dublin because we do not have the same type of local newspapers, but in virtually every household in rural Ireland the local newspaper is bought and read from cover to cover, even by those who do not read or follow news. They have access, whether it is the younger generation or just people who have switched off from the news. They do not regard the local newspaper as a national newspaper. It is more appropriate, especially if it is a local issue and a local site. The local newspaper in rural areas is more important than it is in the city, where it is very different. There are some areas where there is a newspaper that is read by everybody, or at least goes into every household, but that does not happen to the same degree in cities. That is why I asked for this amendment to be drafted and submitted.
I again thank the Deputy for his proposals outlined in amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 72, but I ask him to consider withdrawing them as I intend to propose a range of amendments relating to the use of national and local newspapers for the purposes of section 18 general list notices in either hard copy or electronic format.
Amendment No. 71, unfortunately, is not considered workable. As mentioned on Committee Stage, the anticipated size of the register of monuments is an important factor here, as well as the already comprehensive administrative procedures that are provided for in the Bill. It is important that what features in the enacted Bill is workable and not only aspirational. There are practicalities that need to be taken into consideration when it comes to its implementation.
The Bill contains ample consultation requirements prior to entering, amending or deleting particulars in the register of monuments and further notification procedures once a register action is carried out. Notice may be given directly to the owner of the land on which a relevant monument is situated or by publishing a notice in a national newspaper regarding the availability of further information relating to a register action. The information referred to will be available on the Department’s website and at a relevant site, such as a library, local authority office, or Garda station. Where special protection is to be applied to a monument, notice of the corresponding registered action must be by way of specific notice directly to a landowner.
It is considered that this approach strikes a workable balance between ensuring owners are, to the fullest extent possible, made aware of the legal protection applicable to registered monuments but without running the risk that important sites are left unprotected due to administrative difficulties, such as issues concerning the identity or whereabouts of landowners. This will help ensure the register of monuments can be established while not precluding further work regarding notification to landowners by way of specific notice.
For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.
I will not delay on this. The whole idea is to make sure there is as wide a consultation as possible in respect of the areas where the notice can be viewed. Very few people go to their Garda stations and, in many parts of rural Ireland, half of them are closed during the week. As for the library, there is a problem as regards the numbers there. We will deal with whatever is there. It is about having the widest possible readership or consultation. People need to be able to see the signs in future. That is one of the problems. The vast majority of people are switching from hard copy newspapers. It is about how we reach those who do not read newspapers or go to their Garda station or library and get their information through some gadget or other.
It is something we will have to come back to as a society, not just as regards this issue but on a whole range of other issues. How do we reach out to those who we want to play a role in public consultations but who are not at present? In future, they definitely will not play a role because they are disconnected from the official sources of notices, whether these are national or local newspapers. I concentrated on local newspapers in this amendment because, at the very least, we know that people read them, or some of the free newspapers in this city. They at least get them. I do not know whether they read them from cover to cover or look at the pictures but they cannot say they did not have access to them. The whole key is to have access or sight of notices. Whether it is to do with this issue or other aspects of public consultation, it is something we will have to grapple with.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Deputy. There is such a plethora of information-sharing platforms. In many cases, the way people get their information nowadays is changing dramatically. Thankfully, there is still generally quite a good readership of local newspapers, especially in rural areas, as the Deputy said. I have given a commitment to, and we are proposing, a range of amendments relating to the use of local and national newspapers in the context of section 18 and the general list notice.
Separately, I take on board the points the Deputy made regarding people who use our library services, or go to local authority offices or even to Garda stations. What we are doing is going a distance as regards special protection being applied to a monument. The notice corresponding to a register action will be sent as a specific notice directly to a landowner.
As regards amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 72, I will bring forward a range of amendments relating to the use of national and local newspapers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No.26:
In page 27, line 17, to delete “whether in hard copy or electronic form, or both” and substitute “in both hard and electronic form”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 27, 186 and 187 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 29, line 29, after “thing” ” to insert “, except for the purposes of section 173,”
These amendments are related to others we have addressed. I have no problem with amendments Nos. 186 and 187, which have been tabled by the Minister, and I have addressed amendment No. 27.
I again thank the Deputy for this proposal. I confirm that I will propose significant amendments directly to the terminology used in section 173 to provide for this amendment. Accordingly, I ask the Deputy to consider withdrawing it.
Specifically on amendments Nos. 186 and 187, following on from Deputy Ó Snodaigh’s proposed amendment, amendments Nos.186 and 187 delete the term “relevant thing” from section 173 and replace it with the term “relevant item” instead.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 29, lines 29 and 30, to delete “whether situated on, in or under land” and substitute “whether a landscape or situated on, in or under land”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 30, line 1, after “place” to insert “, including any other site directly associated with that event”.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 30 cannot be moved because amendment No. 29 has been agreed to.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 30, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
“(f) any battlefield;”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 30, line 27, after “legend” to insert the following:
“including association with Gaelic language or culture or the language or culture of Travellers or other minorities”
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 32, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“Valletta Convention
3. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be understood to violate or undermine the definitions, principles and requirements outlined in the Valletta Convention to which Ireland is a signatory.
(2) The Minister, the Commissioners, the Board, the Council and each local authority, shall be required to ensure the Valletta Convention is adhered to in full when implementing this Act.
(3) The Minister shall establish regulations to ensure full compliance with the Valletta Convention where clarity is needed in the implementation of this Act.”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that nothing in the Bill undermines the convention’s principles. We have discussed how the Bill goes beyond the convention, so my amendment would be superfluous in some ways, but it sets the baseline that nothing in the Bill should be understood to violate or undermine the convention’s definitions or principles. In this way, if there is any contradiction or a legal case or judicial review is taken because the legislation is not clear in its Title or content, people can understand what was the intention. Each local authority would be required to ensure the Valletta Convention was adhered to in full as it implements this Bill. Obviously, local authorities will have to go beyond the convention, given that they will have to implement this legislation once enacted. Under this amendment, the Minister would also establish regulations to ensure full compliance with the convention.
The intention is not to hamper the Bill’s effect, but to ensure that everyone understands the situation fully and there is no excuse, unlike what happened in respect of the demolition of The O’Rahilly’s house when people claimed they did not know they had a duty to protect it. The idea with this legislation is that everyone from the farmer to the developer to a member of the public understands he or she has a duty to protect our heritage and that he or she cannot get away with claiming ignorance as an excuse. The same should be true of those who are in public office and who have a duty of care in accepting planning or other changes to our built and environmental landscapes. They must understand the basic principles behind this Bill.
We have debated this matter, so I will not delay any further.
I thank the Deputy for the good intention behind this amendment. I wholeheartedly agree we all have a duty to protect our heritage.
As has been confirmed multiple times during the Bill's passage through the Oireachtas, the enacted Bill will not only give effect to many aspects of the Valletta Convention, but it is the main vehicle the State will use to give effect to the convention. It goes beyond what the convention requires in respect of archaeological heritage. I ask the Deputy to consider the scope of the Bill, the different types of interest it provides for - archaeological, architectural, cultural and historic - and the wide-ranging powers to protect not only sites and structures, but also sites where it is reasonable to believe that monuments may be located. I am confident that no part of the Bill runs contrary to the Valletta Convention. For this reason, I am unable to accept the amendment.
The Deputy may recall that, on Committee Stage, I provided a useful table comparing the Bill with the objectives of the convention. The table set out that we were going above and beyond. By their nature, conventions are vague because they are trying to be catch-alls to ensure broad acceptance by many different signatory nations. With this Bill, I am confident we are not only giving effect to the Valletta Convention, but we are going above and beyond what we signed up to.
There are parts of the Valletta Convention that we do not fully address in the Bill and others we go well beyond. A part of our job is to allow for public access, which we can try to address in the next set of amendments. There are commitments to ensure everyone adheres fully to the convention. By virtue of us passing the Bill, they will have to do so. We need to have a discussion about public access. During the Bill’s pre-legislative scrutiny and its Second and Committee Stages, we debated the question of how to deal with compensation. One of the aspects of the Valletta Convention is that we need to give public access to their heritage as much as possible.
I will not delay this matter. We have had a good innings on it.
I recall our discussions on the public access issue, although that is obviously not within the scope of this Bill. To reiterate, I am confident the Bill addresses much of what the Valletta Convention asks signatory nations to set out to achieve. Critically, the Bill will strengthen the protection of our heritage. That is significant.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 34 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 35 to 39, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
Tairgim leasú a 35:
In page 32, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“(a) that the historic, archaeological and cultural heritage of Ireland, as the product of the labour, craftsmanship and talent of their forebearers, belongs equally to all the people of the Irish nation and that this heritage must be protected for the people and as the inheritance to which future generations are entitled as a right;”.
While the intent of this amendment is accepted in the Bill, it is not set out so explicitly therein. This would be a useful declaration of intent by the House, as it enshrines a rights-centred approach to our heritage in legislation. It recognises and takes account of why we need to protect our heritage, namely, for future generations. It is a reflection of the provisions of the 1916 Proclamation, which reads, “the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland”. We have discussed the number of national monuments and how we cannot list, expose or highlight the prominence of every one of them. At the time, I mentioned there was a nice little book, entitled National Monuments of Ireland in the Charge of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, which was published in 1964. Only 400 or 500 were listed in the book when it was published.
There were many additions afterwards. The question is where to stop because there are so many. It is a useful book and tool. When I was younger, you could nearly tick off which site you had visited as a child. Nowadays, maybe the Internet can be used to do that. We have the ability to identify many more national monuments, record them and share that record with the public using a much better method than publishing little books like that. Every county and village could have a book the size of the one produced in the 1960s.
Protection is a big issue. There is a big onus on who pays for the access and protection. There is a question of whether it is better to leave the national monuments we know exist. I mentioned Sinéad Marshall's book on the list. I think there are still 30,000 on the list. Each is a national monument because they are designated quite clearly, and there are many others. There are many burial sites so one can start multiplying the number of national monuments we have. It makes the job a lot more difficult but not impossible. It is about trying to capture that people understand that it is not theirs to destroy or charge fees to visit and the history that goes with all of these monuments should be shared as much as possible. That might mean access to the site by archaeologists or historians; it does not necessarily always mean that the public has to go traipsing through people's fields. That is part of it.
There are quite a lot of national monuments in the National Museum and national collections. Thankfully, in this State, in the main, access to those is free of charge but there are national monuments held in private collections which can be quite costly for people to access. We need to address that issue as well, not necessarily in this legislation. It would be preferable if a message were to go out underlining the approach that will and is being taken and that this legacy should be in the ownership of the people as much as possible and nobody can sell off, damage or do anything that would undermine the portfolio of national monuments we have. That is the intention. It is not to cut across the Bill but to add to it and have that clearly stated.
I will speak about amendments Nos. 35 and 36. I commend my colleague on the wording because it echoes back to the words of the Proclamation in the hall outside about the right of the people to the ownership of Ireland. I will speak about two issues in my constituency, Kildare North, involving two key heritage sites, one of which is Connolly's Folly. I am raising this issue as I was once a councillor on Kildare County Council. Built at the time of the famine of 1740, it is a beautiful obelisk called "bliain an áir", the year of the slaughter. It was built by the Connolly family to ensure that local people would have work at the time rich people believed that poor people should have to work for their money at all times, even if they were starving to death. They did that to put food on the table and keep their families alive. It is an obelisk; I have a painting of it. A local person painted it and gave it to me. It is in my constituency office. The folly is surrounded by the most awful, ugliest railings you could possibly imagine. Local people in Maynooth, Leixlip and Celbridge have told me they remember visiting it as children. Some of the things they used to do were possibly a bit dangerous, like cycling up the sides of it, but it belonged to the people of north Kildare and the area. That is really important. It is a landmark locally, which is vital for young people. It was built on the product of the labour, craftsmanship and talent of our forebears. It belongs equally to all the people of the Irish nation. I recall when I brought it up as a councillor, some of the Fine Gaelers were kind of laughing at me for seeking to have this beautiful obelisk built by very wealthy local family preserved. However, it was built by the people for a reason and they worked on it for a reason - to keep food on their families' tables. It is important that it now belongs to the people of Ireland and north Kildare.
Amendment No. 36, states that "existing rights of way to access, appreciate or view heritage should be vindicated and that, where possible, rights of way should be established in the case of monuments where they have not yet been established". I refer to Castletown House in this context. The situation in north Kildare, in the middle of Celbridge, is of huge concern to the people of the area. I have never before seen such numbers of people coming out to protest when the Office of Public Works, OPW, let us know at 8.30 p.m. on a Friday evening that access from Leixlip would be closed. Half past eight on a Friday was the earliest the OPW could tell us that, yet there were lorries there at 7.30 a.m. on the following Monday morning. The people of Celbridge came out in their hundreds. One guy spoke to me about the lorry coming in trying to put down a temporary car park in one of the meadows just adjacent to the house. The lack of access to Castletown House has lit a fire among the people of north Kildare. I support them 100%, as do all the Deputies and the Green Party Senator in County Kildare. The people will not be backing down.
The OPW was unfortunate that it was not able to bid enough to buy the site. It has since come to my attention, from a freedom of information, FOI, request by Suzie Miller in Celbridge, who sent a letter to me, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, that the final paragraph of the brokerage report of 2020 states: "We have been informed that Janus Securities have confirmed that the subject lands are to be brought to the market imminently, but have presented the OPW with the opportunity to purchase the property off-market." This is critical. Why did the OPW not buy the property off-market when it was not going into a sealed tender? I want an answer to that question. I bring my grandson there for walks. If we got those lands, I would love for a linear walkway to be developed out to Connolly's Folly in north Kildare to connect the two sites. Those lands also form a green belt barrier between Leixlip and Celbridge. While I am sure people a few hundred years ago wanted their little village of Rathgar to be separate from the village of Rathmines, that separation is gone. We can still protect it in a rural county such as Kildare which is not the capital city.
The Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW has serious questions to answer. I would like the Government side to support this amendment. The owners of Castletown House did not need a right of way because they owned all the land. it may not have been called a right of way but one can still see it. The produce to these old houses came in from the canals. It came into the canal there at Leixlip. There is a straight linear path which can still be seen on old maps, from Leixlip into Castletown House. It is like one of the milk roads. It is a dead straight road and is still called the Leixlip gate. It is important that it is protected. It was closed temporarily because the motorway was built but it must still be considered a right of way. I hope the Minister of State will accept this amendment.
It would give backing to support the people of north Kildare who fought valiantly to support this land.
Ba mhaith liom mo thacaíocht a thabhairt do leasú Uimh. 35 agus gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Teachta Ó Snodaigh, a thug an leasú go dtí an áit seo. The Bill is for the protection of historic and archaeological heritage. I support amendment No. 35, which proposes to insert "that the historic, archaeological and cultural heritage of Ireland, as the product of the labour, craftsmanship and talent of their forbearers, belongs equally to ... the people" and should be preserved into the future.
As the Minister of State will be aware, there is a proposal by Kerry County Council to sell a portion of ground in Tralee to the Courts Service. The Courts Service has been in charge of the current courthouse in Tralee since it was established. Some Members may have been in the courthouse. There have been plans and drawings on the wall since the 1990s to provide wheelchair access and refurbish the building and keep it as a working courthouse. Since the Courts Service took over, however, all it has done with the courthouse is to provide a fridge and a new kitchen for the judges and maybe one or two new seats. Other Covid suggestions along the lines of video link and the digital audio recording system have been approved but the building itself has been allowed to fall into disrepair. There is extreme frustration among the legal community, Kerry Law Society, the Bar Council and the people of the town that this has been allowed to happen. The Courts Service then stated that the building did not fit the needs of a modern court building and should, therefore, be moved away from the centre of town. The problem is that since these proposals were mooted three or four years ago, there has been absolutely no plan to do anything with the existing building. The building is an example of craftsmanship. It was built with stone quarried from the green in Tralee town centre, where there was an old limestone quarry. It was crafted there in the 1840s, going back to the days of Daniel O'Connell, and it has hosted many famous court trials through the years. In light of the new Family Courts Bill 2022, it is a shame that other buildings, such as the old Ulster Bank, which is now closed, and the Kerry Protestant Hall, which is across the road and also constructed of limestone from the centre of town, are not being developed as a courts hub in the centre of town. The Government's town centre first plan and its proposals in respect of carbon footprint are contrary to the proposals that are being brought forward by the Courts Service. I do not think the conveyance has gone through. I hope it is not too late. Members of Kerry Law Society made a fair point. The building they use every day is falling into disrepair but the Courts Service is saying it needs a new court building. For the overall good of archaeological heritage, keeping services in the town centre and preserving them for another 170 years, that decision should be reversed.
While I have the time, I will refer to a building in the ownership of the OPW. Having met with a group called Better Ballyduff, I went to see Rattoo tower, which is a very well-preserved round tower in the village of Ballyduff in north Kerry. While there, I met two German tourists with an interest in archaeology and Irish history. They were visiting two centres in Ireland, namely, Clonmacnoise and the round tower in Rattoo. Pointing works on the round tower have been ongoing for the past four or five years and access to the tower has been closed off for all that time. It is an area with massive tourism potential. There are no signs in Ballyduff to advertise this heritage site. It is located down a narrow road but access to the area has been closed off for many years and it does not look like anything will be done with it. The development of tourism potential in the area is being held back. I ask the Minister of State to look into the matter and see whether the round tower can be opened as soon as possible. There do not seem to be any great works going on but the tower is closed off and there is a small bit of scaffolding at the bottom of it. I ask him to look into the matter. Ballyduff is adjacent to the Wild Atlantic Way but there are no signs to divert tourists into the village. People are coming from Germany to visit the site because it is so well-preserved. I ask him to take that into account.
I support Deputy Ó Snodaigh's amendment and thank him for tabling it.
I am conscious that we are speaking to the grouping of amendments. Amendment No. 38, tabled by the Labour Party, is in keeping with the spirit of the other amendments, which seek to ensure maximum protection for heritage. The general object of the Bill is to update the National Monuments Acts and ensure strong protections for historic and archaeological heritage. Amendment No. 38, in particular, seeks to ensure there is public access to national monuments and other historic heritage sites. Whatever protections are put in place in the Bill, the public value thereof is limited if the monuments and sites are not accessible to members of the public. If they are kept hidden from public access and view, there is a question over the extent to which people can experience their own heritage. We are conscious that public access can bring its own problems, including the need to safeguard monuments, landscapes and sites from excessive interference and possible damage. There are also legitimate concerns among private landowners. Through amendment No. 38, we are seeking to ensure the principle that reasonable public access is a public good is enshrined in law and that there could be detailed regulatory provision regarding how competing interests would be reconciled and how this public good would be best protected. The key point we wish to ensure is that the statement of principle is there and that section 3(1) would also provide that a person performing a function under the Act would recognise and take due account of principles, to include that historic heritage is a non-renewable resource of great cultural and scientific importance and that there would be a presumption in favour of the protection in situ of historic heritage. We wish to add to those listed principles the principle that reasonable public access, subject to appropriate controls and conditions, is a public good and the promotion of such reasonable public access would be the responsibility of "the Minister, the Board, the Council and each local authority".
Colleagues have spoken about historic sites in their areas. I recently visited Castletown House in Celbridge with the local Labour Party councillor, Angela Feeney, who has been very active in the campaign to preserve access to the house. It is a magnificent site of national heritage and there should be no restriction of access to allow people to enjoy it. Local people told me how much of a lifeline it was to them during Covid in particular. The idea that access would be restricted is unacceptable to the local community. We need a provision in the Bill such as that proposed in amendment No. 38 to ensure this principle is respected and there is a duty and responsibility placed at all levels of governance to recognise that not just the preservation of national monuments and heritage sites, but also access to them, is a public good. That is the essence of the amendment. The other amendments in the grouping are in keeping with the spirit of the principle we are seeking to secure.
I support the amendments. The issue of public access to heritage and monuments is extremely important. I raised the matter in depth on Committee Stage. I tabled amendments on it that were designed to ensure the Bill interacts with existing legislation relating to how we can ensure access and existing routes for doing that, such as the powers of local authorities. I suggested there would be a key role for the Minister in being able to ask local authorities to use their existing legislative powers in that regard, specifically with regard to archaeology and heritage. I acknowledge and welcome that the Minister, as he stated he would on Committee Stage, has brought forward an amendment reflecting the proposals put forward on that issue.
I do think that is going to be helpful and constructive. How long is it going to take for these provisions in the Bill to be enacted and go live? It is not just an issue for Castletown House. There are other areas of key significance around the country where there are live issues and concerns about access to monuments and heritage. At what point will the Minister be able to start exercising the powers that the amendment allows for?
I want to raise the issue of the 5,500 year-old passage tombs at the top of Sliabh na Callaigh, Loughcrew, Oldcastle, County Meath. Cairn T has been closed to the public since 2018. Immediate action should have been taken but it was not. My fears are that Cairn T will collapse before action is taken, making it harder to reopen to the public. It is currently propped up with an acro-jack. The issues with Loughcrew cairns were pointed out to the OPW over five years ago. Why has it taken so long before doing anything? There has been five years of continued erosion while Cairn T is propped up with an acro-jack. Not one thing has been done to protect this monument. If we wait for the OPW to go through a long-winded succession of nonsense, the roof of this incredibly precious monument, not only in terms of the origins of the Boyne Valley culture but in the precious neolithic history of Ireland, western Europe and the world, will have already collapsed. We have a fully intact series of solar-aligned passage chambers on top of Sliabh na Callaigh. Carnebane East and the fire pit at the top of Cairn T most likely signal those alignments around the 18+ counties visible from there, and possibly as far as western Scotland and west Wales.
Last December the chairperson of the OPW, Mr. Maurice Buckley, during questioning before the Committee of Public Accounts, said that €19.7 million was returned to Government coffers in 2022 alone. Yet, for the past five years the OPW has been pleading a lack of funds to bring back access to Cairn T. Simply put, that is not acceptable in this day and age. We need a swift and effective response from Government to ensure that Loughcrew cairns and other sites of national importance are protected. Can the Minister of State indicate what OPW conservational management plans are in place for remedial works on Cairn T, Loughcrew, Oldcastle, County Meath? This has gone on too long. Not one thing has been done in five years and everybody in the area is afraid the cairn will collapse.
With the indulgence of An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, I will deal with the constituency issues first before I speak to the amendments. On the points raised by Deputy Cronin in respect of the Obelisk, it is a good time for me to advertise some of the grant schemes in our Department and, in particular, the community monuments fund and built heritage grant schemes. They will be coming back into effect over the next couple of months. They have been hugely impactful schemes that have helped communities and custodians of built heritage like that to conserve and put in management plans for their conservation. I also point the Deputy in the direction of the Irish Follies Trust, which does fantastic work. We did some work with the trust on the pyramid mausolea in the graveyard in Naas. I urge the Deputies to see them if they get the chance. They are fantastic. The communities are really proactive and want to take care of the monuments in their care and communities. The community monuments fund is a fantastic vehicle and mechanism for doing that.
I note that a few Deputies, including Deputies Bacik and Cronin, have raised the issue of Castletown House. I received a briefing from the Minister of State Deputy O'Donovan's team on it today, and I know the Minister of State is working proactively in relation to it.
Deputy Daly raised the issue of the court buildings in Tralee. I am familiar with that and have been liaising with the Deputy on that over the last year or more. It is an incredible structure. I urge all parties to see it. It is a fantastic building that I would love to see repurposed and reused.
I ask Deputies Daly and Guirke to send correspondence to me directly in relation to the access issues around Ballyduff round tower and Sliabh na Callaigh, respectively. If they send correspondence to us, we will get a response out to them on those specific issues.
Specifically on these amendments, first of all I should say that Deputy Ó Snodaigh's amendment is one of the most eloquent amendments I have seen put forward in any piece of legislation. I commend him greatly on it. It probably sits well as a preamble to a Heritage Ireland or heritage policy document. Specifically in relation to the amendments, the primary purpose of section 3 is to provide a set of broad principles that mirror those found within the Valletta and Granada Conventions. While I acknowledge its ambition, statements such as the ones proposed in amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are not considered appropriate for a legal document of this nature, given the legal consequences such statements may have for ownership and access.
On amendment No. 35, many elements of Irish historic heritage are not in the ownership of the State, but may have been acquired lawfully and with an intent to preserve and protect such heritage. It is not possible to provide blanket ownership to all Irish historic heritage in the manner proposed. Extensive provisions already exist in the Bill that relate to the acquisition and ownership of monuments and archaeological objects. These are considered sufficient. Provisions already exist in the Planning and Development Acts in relation to public rights of way over privately-owned land, either by agreement or compulsorily. I intend proposing an amendment on this following our discussions on Committee Stage. It should be noted that section 89 of the Bill provides for the enforcement of an easement providing public access to a national monument and under section 75, the OPW or a relevant local authority will have powers to provide visitor access and facilities at national monuments where it is considered appropriate to do so. That probably addresses some of the queries raised by Deputies. For these reasons, unfortunately, I am unable to accept these amendments.
On amendment No. 39 from Deputy Ó Snodaigh, while I have the greatest regard for the joint Oireachtas committee and welcome its support and ongoing interest in the heritage brief, I have no option other than to oppose amendments conferring statutory decision making or supervisory functions on the joint Oireachtas committee. It is quite clear that substantial provision has already been incorporated into the Bill to ensure that there is independent review and advice on its implementation. I acknowledge the coverage the committee has given to the heritage portfolio and I know it is an incredibly busy committee. With the greatest respect to the committee, which I acknowledge is composed of dedicated Members of the Oireachtas, I find it hard to see how any joint committee could deal with the ongoing workload which could result from these proposals, and which would surely divert the committee from its key functions of legislative and policy review and oversight. Moreover, without in any way impugning the impartiality of the joint committee, it must be obvious that, as a politically constituted body, it could be accused of taking a political approach to particular administrative decisions under the enacted Bill and also of lacking specialist heritage expertise such as is held by, or is directly available to, the Heritage Council and the board of the National Museum. Accordingly, I have no option other than to oppose all such amendments.
Amendment No. 37, in my own name, is an amendment to subsection (1)(d) of section 3 and inserts the word “of” which is missing line 29.
On amendment No. 38, in the name of Deputies Bacik and Duncan Smith, while I of course agree with the general idea expressed in the proposed amendment, I do not believe that this text is appropriate for section 3, which sets out broad general principles to be taken into account by all the statutory bodies charged with implementing the Act, of which there are several. The maintenance and presentation of national monuments, which will be registered monuments of which the Minister or a local authority is owner or guardian under the enacted Bill, is a matter for the Minister availing of the services of the OPW or the relevant local authority as the case may be, as provided for under the Bill, and not any of the other bodies under the Bill. Section 75 of the Bill already sets out powers, functions and guiding principles for the Minister and local authorities in that regard. Insofar as the amendment would seek to set out a principle to be followed for heritage sites other than national monuments, as defined for the purposes of the Bill, I believe that it would be inappropriate to include such a principle in section 3 as it does not link clearly to any powers conferred on any of the statutory bodies charged with implementing the enacted Bill. For very clear reasons relating to what is reasonable in terms of intrusion on the rights of owners and the need to guard against owners coming to see the existence of monuments on their land as a liability rather than a heritage asset, the Bill does not endow the Minister or local authorities with powers to enforce public access other than where monuments have become national monuments within the meaning of the Bill, and I do not propose to depart from that.
Again, I must oppose this amendment.
On the question asked by Deputy Cian O'Callaghan on enactment and the provisions of the Bill, it is likely that the implementation phase will follow full enactment and that the enacted Bill will be commenced at the earliest possible opportunity. A report will have to be issued within three years on the operation of the Bill. The time was reduced on the basis of recommendations on Committee Stage.
Those who drafted amendment No. 35 will appreciate the Minister of State calling their words eloquent. Eoghan Finn in the office has a lot to answer for, therefore. It is very rare that I would be accused of being eloquent in my words.
The intent is in amendment No. 35, and amendment No. 36 in particular. With regard to amendment No. 39, I understand what the Minister of State is saying but other Ministers and bodies are answerable or must at least report to Oireachtas committees regarding their actions. The idea is there should be some type of parliamentary oversight.
At the moment, legislation and action on heritage are the responsibility of a Minister with quite a large portfolio. This is not always the case. Responsibility has been shifted around many Departments in the terms of recent Dáileanna. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, has the brief at this stage but he is in a Department that is dealing with one of the greatest emergencies, the housing emergency, as well as with our local authorities.
Let me go back to amendments Nos. 35 and 36 very briefly. They concern the performance of functions but do not outline the functions themselves; the idea is that whoever is performing the function will have due regard to what is stated in these amendments. Amendment No. 36, in particular, is the key one in many ways because it sets out that somebody performing the function has to have cognisance of the right to access. It is quite self-explanatory. I intend to move both amendments Nos. 35 and 36.
Does the Minister of State want to respond?
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 32, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"(a) that the people have a right to appreciate, view and learn from their heritage, that existing rights of way to access, appreciate or view heritage should be vindicated and that, where possible, rights of way should be established in the case of monuments where they have not yet been established, with a view to further advancing the right of the people to access their heritage;".
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 70; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Níl
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Aengus Ó Snodaigh; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 32, line 29, after “provisions” to insert “of”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 32, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
“(e) that reasonable public access, subject to appropriate controls and conditions, to national monuments and other historic heritage sites is a public good the promotion of which is the responsibility of the Minister, the Board, the Council and each local authority;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 33, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“(5) (a) In the case of historic, archaeological and cultural heritage produced in or which originated in Ireland, but which is beyond the territorial extent set out in subsection (1) as a result of theft, plunder, deception, colonial practices, other unethical methods or where there is doubt surrounding the provenance of heritage understood to be of Irish origin, the Minister shall actively endeavour to secure the repatriation of such heritage to the island of Ireland, including through the petitioning of states and institutions in current possession of the heritage.
(b) The Minister, and any relevant public bodies in the possession of relevant heritage and in receipt of State funds, shall cooperate with requests for the repatriation of heritage produced in or originating in other states which have come to be within the territorial extent set out in subsection (1) as a result of theft, plunder, deception, colonial practices, other unethical methods or where there is doubt surrounding the provenance of heritage understood to be of foreign origin, in any instance where such repatriation is sought by a state of origin in accordance with this subsection, unless such a state fails to agree to cooperate with efforts by the Minister under paragraph (a) on the basis of reciprocity.”.
The amendment would ensure that the Minister and the Minister's agents would have a responsibility or duty to endeavour to secure the repatriation of heritage. A lot of heritage falls within the definition of "national monuments". There is a greater understanding of repatriation in the current age. It is not just one way either; there is repatriation the other way. There is a lot in the ethnographical collections in the museums here that was robbed, stolen or plundered from other countries around the world. If reciprocity with those countries is expected from us, it would be remiss of us not to seek the many Irish treasures that were plundered over the years by those who sought to control Ireland and put those treasures in libraries or sent them elsewhere. We should seek them back. A number of items are on loan back from the British but are, in fact, Irish in the first instance. It is good they are on loan in our institutions, but they should not be on loan because they were Irish in the first instance. There are others, such as the remains of the Irish giant, Derry-born Charles Byrne, which are on display in London's Hunterian Museum. That was against his dying wishes. He was a figure of fun to many when he was alive. Those remains should be returned. There is the shrine of Inishkeel, County Donegal, which was stolen in the 1800s. I could go through a list. One of the interesting things is that many of the manuscripts contained in many of the British libraries and university libraries are bound by Irish manuscripts that were shredded and sent back to make bindings from, so the covers of those books hold the equivalent of the Book of Kells and so on, and over the years they have emerged. They are in themselves Irish so there should be a duty to seek them out. In fairness to the National Museum, over the years it has moved heaven and earth to try to ensure that our collection has as many of our national treasures and national monuments as possible.
The same could be true of the Armada. When I was a young fella in school, there were ribbed boats in Dún Chaoin heading out and diving and never finding anything, but they were there long enough that somebody was funding them, or they were funding themselves through plundering the wreck of Armada ships in that location. All of a sudden, a number of years later, all this new sunken treasure from the Armada appeared in museums and elsewhere around the world.
We have at the moment a movement that is seeking the return of treasures held in Irish museums. It is not fully related to this, but if we are seeking the protection of our national monuments, we need to have them where we can protect them. That is where we need to replicate what we expect others to do in sending back artefacts.
Given the era we are in, we can make 3D and life models of material we hold and scan them in order that we hold that information on them but we should return those artifacts, whether it is the Benin bronzes or the copy of the Koran we hold. We only need to go next door where there are mummified remains on display. These should not really be on display. We should display a model, hologram or whatever but in my view, and that of many others, it is not appropriate for human remains to be displayed in such a way. We should set a standard. We should play a role in decolonisation and encourage others to do likewise. We have a job of work to do and it needs to be borne in mind in anything we do on national monuments. That is why I have submitted amendment No. 40.
I support these amendments. It is shocking to see the British Museum is full of artefacts that, for the most part, are not British. Most have been stolen from other countries. These amendments are absolutely spot on in that heritage that belongs in different areas should be returned. That goes both ways, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, so I fully support this proposal.
I raise the case of St. Cualan's bell, which was found in the late 18th century in Borrisoleigh and dates back many centuries before that. As has already been said, like so many items of its nature from this country, it is no longer found here. It was sold to the British Museum, where it forms part of its religious displays. It is not right that items such as this, which have such historical significance, no longer grace our museums here. We have a duty to ensure that we can, through legislation, commit the Government to seeking the return of St. Cualan's bell and other historical items that have been removed from this country.
I support this important amendment. It expresses the crucial principle of repatriation of heritage, which works both ways in respect of both heritage works from Ireland and those from other countries too. It is such a huge issue now and there is a growing awareness of it. We see so-called august institutions in Britain, the US and elsewhere whose collections rely so heavily on what was, in fact, looting and plunder many years ago. We are beginning to realise that. It is good to see it enshrined in this Bill as a principle. It is also very eloquently drafted.
I support amendment No. 40 on the repatriation of heritage. Visitors to any museum in the UK, especially in London, will see artefacts from all over the world, many of which are from Ireland. In 1916, during the Easter Rising, there was no rising in Limerick but there was a mobilisation. At that time, a flag was seized from the Irish Volunteers by the 4th Battalion of the British Army's Leinster Regiment. That flag was taken to England. It became the property of the then Queen and was displayed in the Imperial War Museum. Following a campaign I launched in 2014, it was returned to Ireland on loan in 2015. It was subsequently returned to the UK, without my knowledge unfortunately, and is now, I think, back in the Imperial War Museum. By passing this amendment, we could make progress on getting that flag back, not just on loan, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, but full time.
The time for the debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 26 September 2023: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and not disposed of, including those in respect of which recommital would in the normal course be required, are hereby made to the Bill; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed; and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and agreed to.
The Bill, which is considered by virtue of Article 20.2.2° of the Constitution to be a Bill initiated in Dáil Éireann, will now be sent to the Seanad.