I thank the Minister of State for his response on the discussion we had last week. I am glad there will be references to the Valletta Convention. The Minister of State mentioned a number of placings. I only acquired a pen halfway through his speech so I have not seen some of the locations. As the debate continues, I am sure he will be able to identify again where the proposed amendments will come in. I welcome the references to Valletta and to other relevant conventions. I will have amendments coming later which re…

I move amendment No. 8: In page 40, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “(3) Where the Minister seeks to delete particulars entered in the Register under subsection (1) , and where such a deletion would result in a prescribed monument ceasing to be considered as such, he or she must first seek the views of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage.”.

I move amendment No. 9: In page 40, line 34, to delete "and".

Amendment No. 9 is a technical amendment related to amendment No. 10. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are similar. The Minister is correct to acknowledge that there is some protection in section 17(5) of the Bill in respect of the Heritage Council, which is one brake there. I was perhaps overly zealous in saying that it was solely the Minister. He or she will consult the council and have regard to their views. However, I believe that it is a significant thing to de-designate or remove a registered monument so that it cea…

I thank the Minister of State, and Senator Boyhan for his input. The key issue for me was to communicate the importance of that local perspective. The PPNs are one route, while the local planning authorities are another. As the Minister of State indicated, he believes the Heritage Council will engage with local authorities in the process of its advice to the Minister. I welcome the fact he indicated that in respect of this provision, he might bring forward an amendment seeking a review to ensure there will not be, …

I move amendment No. 10: In page 40, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “(b) consult with the National Museum of Ireland to seek its views (if any) on the action,”.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 40, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “(b) consult with An Taisce to seek its views (if any) on the action,”.

I move amendment No. 12: In page 40, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “(b) consult with the public-participation network in the local authority concerned to seek its views (if any) on the action,”.

I second the amendment.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 51, to delete lines 25 to 39, and in page 52, to delete lines 1 to 3.

The amendment seeks the deletion of section 27(2). This subsection would exempt, from the protective provisions of the chapter, the authorisation of a proposal to carry out relevant works. Will the Minister of State clarify how the subsection will operate? A great deal of caution is necessary in respect of how our historic and archaeological heritage has been treated in the past and the lack of appropriate protections. I am going to speak to this in more detail in respect of amendments Nos. 15 to 19, inclusive, but…

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

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

I move amendment No. 15: In page 57, to delete lines 6 to 8.

Amendment No. 15 seeks to delete section 29(3)(b), which provides that the Minister may include in his or her prescription of a class of relevant works, works which comprise "an established recurrent activity before the monuments concerned became monuments to which general protection applies." This is a regressive and wide provision which gives carte blanche power to a Minister to classify a category of works as relevant works if they were previously recurrent. Basically, anything that happened previously can conti…

The Minister of State makes the case that there may be certain situations where an activity was happening but the point is that there should not be caveats. This is not being weighed up. It is not necessarily that every time there is a recurrent activity, it should automatically be prohibited. This is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that relevant works should meet the standard in the Bill. I will probably press amendment No. 16 in particular. We should not establish a recurrent activity as a class of relevant w…

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

I move amendment No. 16: In page 57, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: "(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3)(b)(ii) , the Minister may not prescribe an established recurrent activity as a class of relevant works if such activity is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical integrity of a monument to which general protection applies, regardless of when such protection was granted.".

I move amendment No. 17: In page 57, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3)(b)(ii) , the Minister may not prescribe an established recurrent activity as a class of relevant works if such activity is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical or cultural integrity of a monument to which general protection applies, regardless of when such protection was granted.".

I move amendment No. 18: In page 57, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)(b) , the Minister may not prescribe an established recurrent activity as a class of relevant works if such activity is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical integrity of a monument to which general protection applies, regardless of when such protection was granted.".