Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I welcome his contribution. It is important that he would put on the record the significance of the Bill. It comprises 238 sections and 242 pages. It is a monumental Bill. I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Malcolm Noonan, and the officials in the heritage section of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage on this phenomenal body of work.

I want to give a final overview, but more particularly go through the comments raised by individual Members. I thank Deputies for their engagement on this important Bill. There is a clear need to revise and replace the existing law in this area, which was forward looking in its day but is now almost 100 years old. The Bill will introduce a range of innovative measures and significantly advance the policies and systems that we use to protect our historic and archaeological heritage.

I want to go through some of the observations from the Members who contributed to the debate. In response to Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's comment on my Department's response to the pre-legislative scrutiny report, I thank the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, under the chairmanship of Deputy Stephen Matthews, and officials for their considerable work in producing the pre-legislative scrutiny report. It has fed into the process. The pre-legislative scrutiny process was of great benefit.

In total, seven important amendments have been made to the Bill to take account of the report's recommendations, with a further two amendments to be proposed on Report Stage. Only two recommendations were not accepted and the remaining seven were either accepted in full or in part. In fact, there will be a further amendment and all bar one will be accepted. The one which poses a difficulty is a recommendation from the committee that the Bill provides a Minister with the power to invest in the title to private burial grounds and historic areas of cultural interest. We feel there could be legal and constitutional measures. Many such areas are private graveyards. We take the import about preservation.

The intention of the Bill is to simplify and clarify some of the ambiguous terminology currently in use and greatly stabilise the legislative foundation on which the safeguarding and maintenance of monuments relies. Key concepts such as prescribed or registered monuments are to be introduced, along with new levels of clearly defined legal protection.

Deputy O'Callaghan made a number of observations. He spoke about the term "relevant thing" and said it was not defined. I draw his attention to the definitions in the Bill. It states that:

[A] “relevant thing” means any of the following things, whether situated on, in or under land and whether or not attached to the surface of the land or forming part of land and whether or not intentionally or originally in the sites where they respectively are:

(a) any artificial structure, construction, deposit, feature or layer (including any building and any burial or interment);

(b) any artificially altered structure, construction, deposit, feature or layer, whether or not natural in origin;

(c) any wreck;

(d) any ritual or ceremonial site

That issue is very much defined and is included in the definitions in the Bill. The Deputy also made reference to the power to destroy monuments and that, in effect, there is no law relating to that. That is not correct. The Minister will be required to consult the Heritage Council. Furthermore, an EIA would be required. Public consultation is always required. There will be additional staff in the Heritage Council to deal with that. An EIA shall be carried out where proposed works, if carried out, would result in the demolition of the relevant monument to which the special protection applies. There are protection measures in the Bill.

Deputy Ward referenced a number of historic instances of loss of important sites.

He stated the Bill must provide a robust mechanism for monument protection. For the first time, there will be automatic protection for newly discovered archaeological sites. A wide range of sites and structures, not only ones of archaeological interest, will be eligible for protection by way of entry in the new register of monuments. In contrast to existing legislation, it will be possible to take a proactive approach to assigning a higher level of legal protection under the Bill to registered monuments, without having to show that such monuments are actively in danger or meet a national importance test. I will draw attention to that. The Minister will be responsible for the National Monuments Service, NMS. The work will commence on the monuments register before the Bill is concluded and enacted. It will probably take approximately 12 to 24 months to complete. We are looking at 150,000 archaeological sites of national monuments.

Deputy Smith’s reference to the souterrain at Donabate is a good example of how the Bill, through the prescribed monument system, will afford automatic legal protection to discoveries of archaeological sites such as this. In addition, it might be useful for the Deputy to note that there is no mention of NMS under the existing law, as it is not a separate statutory entity. The NMS is part of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, of which the Minister is head under the Ministers and Secretaries Act. I assure the Deputy that NMS will continue to exist and that significant additional resources have been secured for NMS over the past number of years.

A number of Deputies made reference to the Valletta Convention. The Valletta Convention is intrinsically built into the proposed legislation and is given effect to by a range of provisions, such as those providing for the mandatory reporting of discoveries of archaeological heritage and the creation of inventories. While other enactments, such as the Planning and Development Act, also provide for elements of the Valletta Convention, nothing in the Bill runs contrary to anything in the convention.

Many of the amendments the Minister will be bringing forward are coming from the Second Stage debate in the Seanad. During the discussion in the Seanad, it was acknowledged that there is a desire for the convention’s presence to be increased within the Bill and to provide for additional references to Valletta, my Department continues to engage with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, OPC, to determine whether the following amendments are considered. The first amendment seeks to include a new paragraph in section 3, confirming that the principles and requirements of the Valletta Convention and any other relevant international treaty are to be adhered to in the performance of functions under the Bill. The second amendment, to safeguard the Valletta Convention’s place in any future development of public policy on historic heritage, seeks to include a reference to the convention and any other relevant international treaties into section 168. As this section specifically relates to the co- ordination and development of public policy relating to historic heritage, the amendment will help ensure that going forward, public policy on historic heritage must be developed in accordance with the Valletta Convention. According to the third amendment, section 151 already includes provision that bodies exercising any licensing functions under the Bill must have regard to the provisions of relevant international conventions. My Department will consult with the OPC to see if an express reference to Valletta can be included here, without undermining the standing of the other relevant international conventions.

The Bill will enable the ratification of several other significant international treaties, should Government decide to do so. These treaties cover matters of global importance, such as the illegal trafficking of stolen cultural property and the protection of underwater cultural heritage.

I will deal with a number of matters raised by individual Deputies. Deputy Leddin spoke about the Wild Geese and Patrick Sarsfield. I pay tribute to Dr. Loïc Guyon. We have all worked with him and I have worked with him specifically to get Patrick Sarsfield back to his home. His remains are buried in Belgium. Discussions are ongoing and I hope they will come to a conclusion. I also hope all Oireachtas people who are invited and many others who wish to come along, will come to the French Embassy in May, when we have that meeting.

Deputy Durkan spoke about historical houses. This Bill is about monuments and their archaeological significance. As the Deputy will be well aware, the question about protected structures is a reserved function of the local authority and its members, but I will take his points back to the Minister and take the issue under advisement.

The Bill promotes regulatory reform and introduces significant improvements to licensing and consent systems and it does this while also strengthening heritage protection. The proposed “enforcement notice” system will be a major innovation that will see workable and robust civil enforcement powers introduced to aid enforcement and help ensure compliance with the legislation. Codes of practice will be introduced to explain, in plain English, how functions under the enacted Bill are to be performed, and to provide practical guidance to stakeholders and members of the public.

Officials in my Department are working on a range of proposed amendments that the Minister intends to bring forward on Committee Stage. Many of these are technical amendments, such as providing for the establishment of Tailte Éireann, while others will look to provide for matters discussed in the Seanad. Examples of these include additional references to the Valletta Convention; new reporting provisions; the integration of “cultural interest” into the definition of “relevant interest” and the rephrasing of certain provisions to aid comprehension. Many members have made reference to the cultural interest. It will be included in the definition within relevant interest.

Following Government approval on 14 April, local-government-related technical legislative amendments are to be introduced into the Bill. The legislation to be amended is the Local Government (Maternity Protection and Other Measures for Members of Local Authorities) Act 2022; the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019 and the Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945. These amendments are time-sensitive, which is reason for their inclusion in the Bill.

Technical amendments are required prior to commencement of the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019, relating, inter alia, to the process of levying rates on the appropriate valuation list and clarifications around liable persons. It is critical that the Act is commenced before quarter 4 to comply with an existing legal requirement to make rate-limitation orders under the 2019 Act, as part of the national revaluation programme. The commencement of section 9 of the Act is also a key commitment in Housing for All and is reiterated under action 16.5 of the Housing for All Action plan update and in the vacant homes action plan.

There is also an urgency in relation to the precise amendments proposed to the Local Government (Maternity Protection and Other Measures for Members of Local Authorities) Act 2022, namely the need to clarify beyond doubt that a councillor who takes a period of absence and opts to have a temporary substitute in his or her place in accordance with the 2022 Act, does not continue to exercise functions as a councillor until he or she returns to the role. It is considered that such a clarification would be particularly important, for example, in the context of an election to Seanad Éireann and, therefore, requires that the matter is addressed at the earliest opportunity.

The purpose of the amendments to the Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945 is to address a legal anomaly caused by the repeal of parts the Drainage (Ireland) Act 1856. The amendments will reinstate the legal basis for the functions of the Lough Corrib navigation trustees and will simply provide for Galway City Council, on behalf of the trustees, to carry on managing the lough as it has been doing. The inclusion of the amendments in the Bill enables us to remedy this matter at the earliest possible date.

I acknowledge the widespread support the Bill has received to date. I thank Deputy Matthews for his chairmanship of the Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the committee’s work on pre-legislative scrutiny. Deputy Boyd-Barrett dealt with both in the matters he raised. With regard to the powers vested in the Minister, he or she has to consult with the Heritage Council. That is the key reference point. The Heritage Council is the authority that is designed to be a single statutory body for matters relating to heritage. We wish to ensure there is a focus and that the Heritage Council is very much the key statutory body for such matters.

Deputy Matt Shanahan mentioned County Waterford and the inclusion of heritage sites there. We very much take that on board. Deputy Michael Moynihan made reference to the courthouse in Kanturk.

Under section 170, it falls to the local authority. That section states:

(1) It shall be a general function of the Minister, in consultation and co-operation with the Board, as appropriate, to promote the protection of historic heritage by public authorities in the course of the performance of their functions under any enactment other than this Act.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) but without prejudice to the generality of that subsection, the Minister may enter into an agreement with a public authority.

Section 171 states:

(1) It shall be a general function of a public authority or local authority to have regard to historic heritage in the performance of their respective functions under any enactment.

Both of those sections are relevant to the important points Deputy Durkan raised on the heritage and houses in the areas involved. The Bill will ensure that we have up-to-date legislation that is fit for purpose.

Another area raised was striking the right balance on the rights of the public being able to get to see monuments if they are on private lands. Obviously, the rights of landowners need to be protected. It is a complicated legal matter. We need to be very careful. There are only a few sites that have large-scale visitor access and we want to put the resources into those. We need to ensure the right balance. We want to preserve our heritage. The Bill will ensure that we have a register of national monuments. We need to encourage the public, that where they believe any site to be a national monument site, they bring it to the attention of their local authority and the heritage section of the Department. We can then get a database of our national treasures in terms of monuments.

I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to further engagement on Committee and subsequent Stages. I thank all Members for their contributions.

See this speech in context