I move amendment No. 19: In page 57, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)(b) , the Minister may not prescribe an established recurrent activity as a class of relevant works if such activity is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical or cultural integrity of a monument to which general protection applies, regardless of when such protection was granted.".

I move amendment No. 20: In page 57, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(4) This section shall not apply to a class of relevant works which would restrict public access to a national monument for a period of more than 2 years.”.

Amendment No. 20 inserts a new subsection (4) into section 31, which provides that said section shall not apply to a class of relevant works which would restrict public access to a national monument for a period of more than two years. This is important because our heritage belongs to all of us collectively, as we discussed previously. The relationship with heritage is something we should all be able to enjoy. This is recognising that there may be classes of relevant works that might need to take place for extended…

I thank the other Senators for their contributions, including Senator Cassells. The principle of access is an important one and the Minister of State has acknowledged community value in one other part of the Bill but this is important as well. The reference to "class of relevant works" is not simply around classes of relevant works and we have the exemptions. We have discussed this previously and "the classes of relevant works" can be quite wide, if not necessarily works that are related to the integrity of the sit…

I move amendment No. 21: In page 57, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(4) Where a class of relevant works has restricted public access to a national monument for a period of more than 2 years, the Minister shall review his or her prescription of such a class of relevant works and their impact on public access to national monuments.”.

I second the amendment.

I was very happy to co-sign the amendment and I am very happy to second it. The amendment is very important. I have tabled a number of amendments that relate to specific aspects of the Valletta Convention and how it should be applied to the different parts and functions including those of the Minister of State under the Bill. I am placing it alongside some of the other conventions such as that on intangible heritage, which we will have an opportunity to discuss. As a foundation stone, this initial amendment from Se…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 34, line 18, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

I thank the Minister of State for indicating that, if there are areas of concern relating to the Valletta Convention, he is willing to consider them. Some of the later amendments relate to areas where the Bill falls short of the convention in specific ways. I hope we will have a chance to follow through on the promise of engagement. In one way, this amendment is simple. It changes the section that gives the Minister the power to prescribe monuments to read "there shall be prescribed ... a class of relevant things" …

I imagine that tabular information would be welcome. There are concerns, which we will come to later, around the potential impacts of certain activities under the Bill and the impact in terms of what is designated or not. There is an almost protective element which I am concerned about regarding compliance with the Valletta Convention. I am also concerned, which we will come to later in the next set of amendments, about where the Bill may be consistent with but falls short of the Valletta Convention. That is in the…

I move amendment No. 3: In page 34, line 24, after “archaeological” to insert “, cultural or linguistic”.

Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, reflect the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendation by the joint committee around inserting cultural value into the Bill, and specifically inserting it in amendment No. 3 into the same section. As I said, this is the narrow portal currently phrased as: .. shall not exercise [the powers around the designation] ... unless he or she is of the opinion that the relevant things ... fall within the class of relevant things concerned [...] are of archaeological interest [and then it state…

I urge the Minister of State to push back on this use of the term "uncertainty". With everything we do in legislation, we do not know how exactly it will be used. Thus, when the Minister of State speaks of uncertainty with respect to the cultural heritage piece, for example, I hear it as him saying we do not know how it will be used. However, that is not a bad thing. If we were doing certainty, we would not have a provision that allows for designations of anything. We would just say here are our five historic thing…

It is important that "historic" is placed alongside "archaeological" because otherwise------

I move amendment No. 4: In page 34, line 24, after “archaeological” to insert “, cultural, including intangible culture”.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 38, line 28, after “historic” to insert “, cultural or linguistic”

I move amendment No. 6: In page 38, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “(b) the archaeological, architectural, artistic, historic, cultural, linguistic or traditional value of the monument or thing;”.

I have many questions. However, since I have only five minutes, I will not spend too long on the process, except to say it is unacceptable. What has happened has now happened on three occasions. It does not look like an emergency but a question of the actual strategy. Therefore, with great respect, I disagree with Senator Conway, who talked about planning. If there had been planning, we would have had proper engagement well in advance. We had only 45 minutes between being given the Bill and being asked to waive pre…

My question was in the context of Article 7, which involves transboundary consultation. The consultation in Ireland seems to be curtailed, but I understand Article 7 will still apply. On the dispatchable energy piece, it is specifically relevant, rather than being a general thing. I was quite specific that I was asking what demand-side measures will be taken in each instance when the decision is being made to activate emergency energy generation. We were told there were other measures that would be considered befor…

The Minister of State asked for clarification on the questions and I would like that matter addressed. It is not an abstract question about large energy users. It is instead specific to the instances to which this Bill is conceived as being applicable. Will data centres be asked to turn down or minimise their demand before we start producing extra energy?