Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2023

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, back to the House. This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 148, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister of State may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil. This is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. For Senators' convenience, I have arranged for the printing and circulation of the amendments. The Minister of State will deal separately with the subject matter of each related group of amendments.

Senators have tabled a number of amendments which arise from the changes made to the Bill by the Dáil. In view of the number of amendments and to avoid repetition of debate, I propose that amendments made by the Dáil and related amendments tabled by Senators will be debated together in related groups. Decisions on the amendments tabled by Senators will be taken when discussions on all groups of amendments has concluded. I have also circulated the proposed groupings in the House. A Senator may contribute once on each grouping. I remind Senators that the only matters that may be discussed are the subject matter of each grouping of amendments made by the Dáil and the amendments tabled which arise out of the amendments made by the Dáil.

This group of amendments is straightforward. It consists of amendments introduced to retitle the Bill as a result of the new provisions added under Part 13; to update the Long Title to the Bill; to provide for standard citation matters; and to ensure that the commencement provisions are updated accordingly.

Does any Member want to speak on group 1? If not I will ask the Minister of State to speak on group 2. Group 2 is amendments on the definitions and interpretations and the subject matter of amendments Nos. 6 to 27, inclusive, 33, 34, 63 to 65, inclusive, 104 and 105, and Seanad Report Stage amendments Nos. 1 and 5. I invite the Minister of State to brief the House on those.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the House for the valuable discussions that have taken place to date on this important legislation. As can be seen by the large number of items on the cream list, a wide range of amendments have been made since the Bill was initiated. Many of these are a direct result of the proposals made by Senators and of the corresponding debates. While I will not go into detail on everything that has been amended as part of the Bill's progression through the Oireachtas, I will try to highlight some of those amendments that have been of particular importance.

This group of amendments covers those definitions that have been either amended or inserted into the Bill. Examples of these include new definitions for "amenity", "battlefield" and "cultural interest", as well as amended definitions of "immediate surroundings" and "works". These additions and modifications have greatly improved the coherence and precision of the Bill and again I thank Senators for their views and expertise, which have been instrumental in bringing about these amendments to the Bill.

Will all of them come up like that? That is quite confusing when they are being called out.

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House and I welcome the fact that he introduced a number of amendments in the Dáil based on the constructive engagement he had with my colleague, Senator Higgins, on this Bill. I am disappointed, though, that he opted to table a large number of amendments outside of the subject matter of this Bill in the Dáil without proper scrutiny in the Seanad. It is a practice which has become more common but it is one that does a great disservice to the role of the Seanad in making and scrutinising law.

Let us come to my amendment, Dáil amendment No. 15. I have a concern that by deleting the word "traditional" in the subsequent amendment, No. 16, we are excluding a whole set of practices and items which fall under the scope of this Bill. I note that "artistic" is being brought under the definition of "cultural" but if we include the word "traditional" within the definition of "historic" then we are ensuring that same level of protection applies to traditional objects, practices and landscapes. I urge the Minister of State to accept this amendment.

On the proposed amendment to the Bill, as it stands, following Dáil amendment No. 15, including "historical" in the term "historic" is to remove any doubt that when the term "historic" is used, it relates to matters belonging to the past and not only to something that may have changed history or is considered famous in historical context. The addition of "traditional", as proposed, would be a cause for confusion as it is not related to the reason behind the definition. In addition, the term "cultural interest", as introduced following the previous Report Stage in the Seanad, already provides for traditional interest as it is defined as including artistic, literary, linguistic or traditional interest. For these reasons I would ask the Senators to consider withdrawing this amendment.

Dáil amendment No. 63 is linked with the definition of "demolition" in section 25 of the Bill. An environmental impact assessment, EIA, must be carried out where proposed works, if carried out, result in the demolition of a monument. The purpose of Dáil amendment No. 63 is appropriate and required. It makes it explicitly clear that the exclusion of certain things, the definition of "demolition" or "archaeological excavation", for example, only related to the requirement for an EIA under section 34. It does not apply to the general licensing or notice requirements under chapter 6 of part 2 of the Bill. If the approach proposed by the Senators was adopted it could leave the possibility that some readers of the Bill would be left with the earnest impression that certain forms of demolition are not subject to a licensing or notice requirement. Dáil amendment No. 63 was introduced to avoid that and for this reason I unfortunately cannot accept Seanad amendment No. 5. I do not know if the Senator has spoken to that one yet.

There was only one chance to speak on a grouping so whatever was said was said. No other Member wanted to speak on group 2 so we will move on to group 3, which I ask the Minster of State to speak to. The title of group 3 is "International Treaties" and it is the subject matter of Dáil amendments Nos. 28 and 116 to 119, inclusive, and there are no Seanad Report Stage amendments in group 3.

Dáil amendment No. 28 follows a commitment I made during the previous Report Stage in the Seanad. Section 3 outlines the principles that a person performing a function under the Bill must acknowledge and consider. This amendment acknowledges the significance of, and will further an adherence to, the Valletta Convention or any treaty aimed at promoting or securing the protection of archaeological, architectural or other historic heritage. During discussions in the Seanad I also made commitments to bring further clarity to elements of part 3 of the Bill. This group of amendments moves the definition of "world heritage property" to the beginning of part 3 and provides additional clarity that consultations under section 92(2) are not specific to one particular aspect of world heritage property but can be in relation to world heritage property generally.

We will check that. We are not in a position to deal with amendment No. 2 at this point so we will revisit it and get a ruling on it. The next group is group 4, which are technical amendments and the subject matter of amendments Nos. 29 to 32, inclusive, 99, 109 to 113, inclusive, 120, 125, 126, 132, 162, 169, 174 and 215 to 221, inclusive, from the Dáil. There are no Seanad amendments in group 4.

I do not have any Members indicating that they want to speak on group 4 so I will ask the Minister of State to speak on group 5. Group 5 is titled "Prescribed and Registered Monuments" and is the subject matter of amendments Nos. 35 to 62, inclusive, 102 and 115, from the Dáil. It also includes Seanad Report Stage amendments Nos. 3, 4, 11 and 12. Senator Ruane can speak to No. 2 in this group as well. I will let the Minister of State in first and then Senator Ruane can come in.

The first set of these amendments relate to prescribed monuments and consist of some minor amendments relating to ordnance maps, reports of finds of prescribed monuments, and one major change that was introduced following discussion in this House.

Dáil amendment No. 35 broadens the basis of prescribed monuments by moving from a position where the classes of prescribed monuments, as set out in the regulations made under section 12, would be comprised solely of classes of relevant things of archaeological interest to the current position where such classes may be of archaeological, architectural, cultural, or historic interest. This represents a major expansion in the scope of what was originally envisaged and again I thank the Senators for their observations and proposed amendments that have led to this. A core element of Part 2 of the Bill is the register of monuments. This will replace several overlapping designation and registration systems currently in operation under the National Monuments Acts. Entries to the register will become known as "registered monuments".

This second part of this group of amendments covers a large number of amendments that relate to the operation of the register and to registered monuments, including proposed works at such monuments. Several of these changes have their origins in the Seanad. Some examples include the addition of "community or amenity value" into sections 14 and 20, additional consultation requirements, including mandatory consultation with the Heritage Council in certain circumstances, and additional clarity around what sites and structures are eligible for entry in the register.

Yes. This amendment relates to the transparency around consultations which may happen under section 22(8). While it is welcome that the council is empowered to consult with public authorities regarding register actions, the phrase "or other persons" is quite broad and there should be a record kept where such consultations are undertaken, especially when they are not with public authorities. The amendment is minor but would strengthen transparency and accountability within the process.

On amendment No. 4, throughout this Bill's process and even during its pre-legislative scrutiny there was much discussion regarding the amount of ministerial power in this Bill, how it is not appropriate and may result in lower levels of protection for our historic and archaeological heritage under future Ministers. Dáil amendment No. 62 represents a further regressive step in this respect. Seanad amendment No. 4 inserts a caveat into section 24 that a local authority requires "the consent of the Minister" to affirm that a map of a monument is definitive as to its extent. What is the rationale for this amendment?

Amendment No. 11 seeks to insert a new subsection 6 into section 89, which would provide that as well as the Minister being able to request the creation of a public right of way:

An elected member of a local authority may, by giving notice in writing, request a local authority, of which they are a member, to consider creating a public right of way, under section 206 or 207 of the Act of 2000, to a registered monument situated in the authority's functional area.

Public rights of way are vitally important when it comes to our historic and archaeological heritage. By empowering local councillors to request that they are created, we are ensuring that public representatives closest to the communities have a role to play. It is a minor change but one that would be hugely beneficial in public access to heritage and more participation in placemaking when it comes to our natural landscapes and how we engage in them.

Amendment No. 12 is a technical amendment to allow for the insertion of amendment No. 11.

Yes. I refer to the rejection of Seanad amendment No. 2, to the Bill, as it stands following Dáil amendment No. 56. While I appreciate the intention behind this amendment and fully recognise the need to ensure that notices regarding register actions are disseminated as widely as possible, it would not be prudent to do so as proposed. Volatility in the media sector and the changes which are likely to take place in the coming years require the Minister of the day to have flexibility as to which newspapers are used to publish notices with regard to register lists. The aim is to reach as wide an audience as possible and therefore the discretionary power set out in subsection 10 of section 19 is sufficient. Where local newspapers exist they will in practice be availed of. On that basis I am afraid I could not accept the amendment, though I would again acknowledge the constructive intention behind it.

I refer to Seanad amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 11. The proposed amendment to the Bill as it stands following Dáil amendment No. 61 is not necessary and it could also prove to be problematic. The power of the council to consult with other public authorities or persons before advising the Minister, as provided for in section 22(8), is a formal statutory one and would be documented by the council as part of its general recording of its business. The proposed amendment would open up the possibility of legal challenges based on a claim of breach of the provision but at the same time would give the council no guidance as to what form such records should take, so introducing uncertainty and confusion into the process. I cannot accept this amendment.

On Dáil amendment No. 62, the core provision in section 24 is that the registered monuments owned by or in the guardianship of the Minister or a local authority are deemed to have special protection. In other words they will, as a matter of law, be automatically assigned the higher level of protection under the Bill without the administrative process for assigning such protection being gone through. This is an important strengthening of the protection afforded under the legislation and will ensure that the portfolio of important monuments in the care of the Minister and local authorities, which form a key heritage asset for communities, have the protection afforded them under the current legislation not only maintained but increased. This core provision is supplemented by a power on the part of the Minister or local authorities to publish lists of the monuments so deemed to have special protection. The amendment made in the Dáil introduced an important safeguard whereby a local authority will not be able to give a definitive statement regarding the extent of any particular such monument without the consent of the Minister. This will ensure that the expertise of the National Monuments Service is availed of before any such definitive statement is made, so protecting the monuments in question. In summary, Dáil amendment No. 62 is about strengthening the protection of monuments. On that basis, I cannot see any reason why it should be opposed and, having listened to my explanation, I hope that the Senators might consider withdrawing their proposed amendment.

As regards the proposed amendment to the Bill as it stands following Dáil amendment No. 115, I would like to note that the functions of elected members of a local authority are provided for in part 14 of the Local Government Act 2001. I do not consider this amendment to be necessary as the matter that it provides for is already a right that exists. There is no need to legislate for this and to do so could potentially jeopardise other rights and powers of elected members that are not inscribed in primary legislation.

For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendments in this group are primarily concerned with the important matter of works that are proposed to be carried out at monuments. New provisions include consultation with authorities in other states that have responsibilities for historic heritage and measures regarding access for members of the public to a monument.

Following advice from senior advisory counsel in the Office of the Attorney General, a range of amendments have been introduced to clarify the alignment of the Bill with the Aarhus Convention and the EIA directive. Substantial amendments have been made to section 41 and I believe it is important to provide some detail on these amendments.

Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides for judicial reviews, JRs, of any administrative decision of a public authority. The timelines for the institution of a judicial review under order 84 is three months from the date of decision. Similar to section 50A of the Planning and Development Act 2000, section 41 modifies this time limit by reducing it to eight weeks. 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 very important to note that this eight-week period can be extended by the High Court under section 41(9).

It is in everyone’s interests that any claimed legal faults regarding licensing decisions are brought before the courts for review at the earliest opportunity. This avoids situations where works, for example, urgent conservation works, are delayed pending the elapse of a lengthy period for instigating a judicial review, JR. It also means that 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 determined that, as the Bill stood, the eight-week time limit would only apply to license decisions that involve EIA or appropriate assessment, AA. This would mean that for non-EIA or non-AA cases, judicial reviews would be taken under Order 84 and as a result, a three-month time period would apply. It has therefore been decided that in order to avoid two separate judicial review regimes applying to licenses granted under the Bill, the appropriate amendments would be made to ensure that section 41 JR provisions apply to all license decisions, and not just those involving EIA or AA. In addition, further amendments have been made to section 41(6) to ensure the necessary costs protection provisions operate as intended.

These amendments have been made to strengthen the Transboundary Convention and bring additional states into scope that are not EU member states, such as the United Kingdom. The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, which is informally known as the Transboundary Convention or Espoo Convention, sets out the obligations of states parties to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning and also provides a general obligation on states to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries.

All EU member states and the United Kingdom are states parties to the Transboundary Convention. The Bill, as amended in the Dáil, gives effect to transboundary consultation requirements with specific provision made in respect of works that may affect the environment in other transboundary states.

The first part of these amendments relate mainly to the transfer by a public or local authority of a registered monument. In summary, they require a local authority to publish a notice in a national newspaper when it intends to transfer ownership of a registered monument. The newspaper notice must invite representations from members of the public and such representations are to be taken into account in the decision-making process. These notices may also be published in local or regional newspapers, in either hard copy or electronic formats.

In addition, the removal of the words “under this section” from section 51(6) makes clear that this provision, which enables the acquisition of, for example, rights of way to a national monument, applies to national monuments acquired by the Minister or a local authority under the legislation to be repealed under the Bill, such as the National Monuments Acts, as well as those acquired under the newly enacted acquisition provisions.

The next set of amendments mainly relate to section 75 and a set of new provisions introduced on Report Stage in the Dáil that allow the Minister or a local authority, depending on which is guardian of the monument, to devolve maintenance back to the owner or agree with some other person or body that they should maintain the monument, subject to appropriate safeguards. Such provision is in fact contained within the existing legislation and it was decided that express provision for such agreements with owners and other persons should be carried forward into this Bill.

Section 80 is also amended to provide that the functions of the Commissioners of Public Works in day-to-day operation of a national monument of which the Minister is guardian will stand modified appropriately where he or she has entered into an agreement with the private owner or other person or body for them to carry out maintenance. The default position under section 80 will be that, where the Minister of the day is owner or guardian of a national monument, the OPW will be responsible for its day-to-day operation.

I believe that these amendments strengthen the potential for the wide use of guardianship by offering greater scope for partnership between the national monuments service of my Department or local authorities, as the case may be, with private owners or other persons or bodies, be they local or community-based bodies or national bodies with a heritage focus, interested in taking on the conservation of important monuments.

Finally, amendment No. 114 follows discussions on Committee Stage in the Dáil. The amendment requires all by-laws made under section 81 to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

These amendments relate to archaeological objects. The primary amendment to section 99 provides that where the board of the National Museum intends to dispose of an archaeological object found during an activity licensable under the Bill, the board must first consult with the Minister before making its decision. Introducing such a consultation requirement is consistent with the Minister being the licensing authority for the archaeological excavation and related licensable activities. Additional amendments relating to reports of finds of archaeological objects are also provided for here.

Under section 135, special protection is deemed to apply to wrecks 100 years old or more. Dáil amendment No. 127 also applies special protection to registered and prescribed monuments situated on, in or under land covered by water. This will ensure that section 135 better relates to section 136 in the context of the activities that are prohibited at registered and prescribed monuments situated underwater.

Dáil amendment No. 129 replicates section 26(2) to avoid situations where another licensing authority would be required to obtain a licence under the Bill, for example, where the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which is the licensing authority for dumping at sea, would be required to obtain a licence under the Bill if that dumping was in the vicinity of a historic wreck.

Paragraph (3)(b) of the new subsection provided by Dáil amendment No. 129 makes it explicitly clear that the person proposing to dump material at sea would need both a licence from the EPA and a licence under the Bill if that dumping was proposed to be in the vicinity of a wreck or underwater monument.

That is okay. We will deal with that later. Does the Senator wish to speak to group 11? No. That is fine. We will move on to group 12, which is on licensable activities. It is subject matter of Dáil amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 161, and there are no Seanad amendments. The Minister of State may go ahead on group 12.

Dáil amendment No. 130 inserts “immediate surroundings” into section 148(1)(e). The effect is that the unauthorised possession of detection device in, at, on, over, above, or within the immediate surroundings of a registered monument of a wreck one hundred or more years old, will be an offence. This will assist enforcement and strengthen the application of subsection (1)(e).

Dáil amendment No. 131 provides that warnings relating to the use and possession of a detection device in the State will be in both Irish and English. Dáil amendment No. 161 provides a major strengthening of the law in relation to combatting illegal use of detection devices to search for archaeological objects. It will allow a court in a prosecution under subsection (1)(f) of section 148, to draw an inference from a failure of an accused person, when asked by a member of An Garda Síochána, to account for their possession of a detection device. The provision is modelled on a similar provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1984.

As I do not have any Members indicating they wish to speak on group 12 I will move on to group 13, which relates to the issuing of licences under the Bill. It is the subject matter of Dáil amendments Nos. 133 to 144, inclusive, Nos. 149 to 153, inclusive and No. 163, and Seanad Report Stage amendments Nos. 15 and 16. I invite the Minister of State to speak to group 13.

This group of amendments covers several matters relating to licences issued under section 151 of the Bill. Examples of these amendments include: technical amendments relating to the granting of, or a refusal to grant, individual licensable activities as part of a licence application; amendments relating to conditions that may be attached to a licence; provision that further licensable activities that may be required as a condition of a licence will not be exempted from requiring a licence; provision for refusal to grant a licence due to non-compliance with a previous licence; provision for consultation with authorities in other states that have responsibilities for historic heritage; and provision for time limits for licence consultations.

Finally, Chapters 4 and 5 of Part 10 endow officers and agents of the relevant authorities under the Bill with a range of powers, for example, in relation to the carrying out of inspections and archaeological excavations. Dáil amendment No. 163 makes it clear that the fact that something is done under those powers will not exempt it from the licensing requirements established under the Bill. This is an important clarification which should provide reassurance that the relevant authorities will operate to the same high standards as will be required of others undertaking licensable activities under the Bill.

Yes, I will speak directly to my amendments. Amendment No. 15 seeks to amend the Government amendment to section 151 on the granting or refusal of a licence by stipulating the new subsection (7). We propose that ", in particular non-compliance which led to the destruction or significant alteration of an archaeological object, national monument or protected monument," would be grounds for refusal of a subsequent application for a licence. This is to ensure that individuals who endanger our archaeological heritage are not granted subsequent licences to undertake relevant works and that we require those seeking such licences to demonstrate due and proper regard for the protection of such heritage.

Amendment No. 16 returns to a similar point regarding ministerial discretion. It seeks to ensure that: "Where the Minister proposes to grant a licence and is of the opinion that the licensable activity which, if the licence were granted, would be authorised to be carried out by the licence may have significance to another state," he or she has a statutory obligation to "consult with an authority in that state, being an authority that has responsibilities as regards historic heritage in that state in order to obtain the authority's views (if any) on such activity." The current wording is not strong enough. If we are granting licences that impact on another country's archaeological heritage, there must be suitable engagement and such engagement must be an obligation. This is more than a diplomatic responsibility, but it is an imperative in order to fulfil our obligations under various international treaties on the protection of international heritage.

I believe that the proposed amendment to the Bill as it stands following Dáil amendment No. 143 would likely be counterproductive. This is because the text proposed to be inserted could be construed as limiting the circumstances in which non-compliance with a previous licence could warrant refusal of a further licence. It might be argued that it was necessary to demonstrate destruction or significant alteration of an archaeological object or monument before refusal was warranted. Serious non-compliance with a licence could take a range of forms and could pose significant risk to historic heritage, without it being possible to demonstrate actual damage. I am not, therefore, in a position to accept this amendment.

Regarding the proposed amendment to the Bill as it stands following Dáil amendment No. 144, the introduction of a provision to enable the Minister of the day to consult with heritage protection authorities in other states before issuing a licence under the Bill is an innovative measure that gives express and real recognition to the transboundary nature which historic heritage can have.

I was pleased to take on board the views expressed in the Dáil that provision should be made for transboundary consultation, and I believe that Dáil amendment No. 144 will provide a clear basis for this in the future. However, to change the provision from a discretionary one to a mandatory one, which is what the amendment put forward by the Senators would do, would create significant dangers. As a mandatory obligation, decisions as to whether or not to consult under the provision would very likely be open to legal challenge, with such challenges potentially delaying important licensing decisions, which in truth did not really merit transboundary consultation. This could put pressure on the Minister of the day and her or his officials to err on the side of caution by doing an excessive amount of transboundary consultation, giving rise to unjustified administrative burdens and pressure on available resources, without any guarantee that such consultations would even be responded to by the relevant authorities in other jurisdictions. I cannot, therefore, accept the proposed amendment.

Section 152 is a major addition to the legal mechanisms for ensuring that works and activities regulated under the legislation are carried out to the appropriate standard. It enables a licensing authority to require an applicant to have his or her competence assessed through procedures set out in regulations. This is especially relevant to ensuring that specialist activities such as archaeological excavation are only carried out by properly skilled practitioners.

Amendments were made in the Dáil to ensure that assessment of competence provisions are applicable to persons who are going to undertake, for example, professional supervision of licensed works to a monument, even where such supervision is not, of itself, a licensable activity under the Bill.

Clarity is also provided that the Minister of the day, in setting out in regulations who will carry out the assessments of competence, may do so by reference to categories of person who may do the assessments.

As I do not have anybody indicating to speak on group 14, I thank the Minister of State for his contribution. We will move on to group 15, which concerns guidelines to be issued regarding monuments, which is the subject matter of Dáil amendment No. 154 and Seanad Report Stage amendment No. 17. I invite the Minister of State to speak to group 15.

Dáil amendment No. 154 was introduced following an initial amendment brought about as a result of concerns raised in the Seanad as to whether there was sufficient provision in the Bill to ensure that statutory local authority development plans under the Planning and Development Act 2000 would take sufficient account of the register of monuments.

Following a review of section 167, I revised it fully. Dáil amendment No. 154 ensures that guidance issued under it to local authorities, including in relation to mandatory development plan objectives, can be as regards all aspects of historic heritage, not just registered monuments. Second, the revised version more clearly sets out that guidance can be in relation to all or any of the functions of local authorities, whether under the enacted Bill or other Acts.

Senators will, of course, be aware that a new planning Bill is in preparation. Its enactment will necessitate consequential revisions to references to the existing planning legislation in other legislation such as this Bill. Section 167 of the Bill will, therefore, have to be consequentially amended as part of the new planning Bill. However, I assure Senators that it will be my intention to ensure that such amendments ensure the same strong provision as is being set out in the current version now before them.

Yes. Amendment No. 17 seeks to amend the proposed new section 167 on guidelines for local authorities. I welcome this new section following the engagement the Minister of State had on previous Stages with Senator Higgins. One issue is that in subsection (1) there seems to be a blanket provision that in drawing up guidelines on historic heritage for local authorities, the Minister can consult with whomever he or she likes. This could mean developers or business lobbyists, for example, whose primary concern is not the protection of our archaeological heritage. My amendment would stipulate that the persons must have requisite qualifications or expertise in archaeology, history, culture, architectural protection or protection of natural and built heritage. This is a much more appropriate provision.

One issue that has been widely spoken to is the destruction of our ring forts. The last survey on the destruction of archaeological sites carried out by the Heritage Council in 2001, which surveyed 1.4% of all known monuments in the State, found that 34% of ring forts had been destroyed since first recorded in ordnance surveys beginning in the 1820s.

The rate of destruction increased over decades, reaching 6.5% in the late 1990s. My amendment seeks to ensure that developer-led destruction is not allowed to happen again and is guarded against in this legislation.

The power conferred by section 167 on the Minister of the day to issue statutory guidelines to local authorities, which they will be bound to have regard to in the exercise of their functions under any legislation, is far-reaching. It may have significant implications for a wide range of stakeholders, not just experts in the various aspects of heritage. Local communities, members of the farming community and other occupiers of land, NGOs, other Departments and public authorities and a range of other individuals and sectors might have significant interest in any such proposed guidance but not come within the limiting criteria proposed to be inserted by this amendment.

It would not be good practice, or conducive to building public support for heritage protection, to introduce such exclusionary criteria as proposed by the amendment to amendment No. 154. The Minister of the day will, of course, decide the content of the guidance and persons or bodies consulted will not have a veto but those with a legitimate interest or concern should have an opportunity to give their view. I, therefore, cannot accept what is being proposed.

This group contains an important amendment that I would like to comment upon. Dáil amendment No. 160 revises section 175(18) to significantly strengthen and widen the principle set out in the provision as it currently stands. It makes it clear that in a prosecution for an offence arising from a breach of the sections relating to general and special protection - sections 27 and 30, respectively - it is not necessary for it to be proven that the accused knew that the relevant thing of relevant interest that is the subject of the prosecution was subject to legal protection as a prescribed or registered monument. This principle is now extended to all prosecutions relating to relevant things of relevant interest under the enacted Bill and, moreover, an analogous principle will be provided in respect of prosecutions relating to archaeological objects under the enacted Bill. The new section 175(19) stands in its own subsection, rather than in section 175(18)(b).

The second part of this group of amendments provides for three matters relating to enforcement notices to be issued under section 195. Dáil amendments Nos. 165 and 166 are technical amendments to make it clear that enforcement notices issued under section 194 may relate to licensable activities. Dáil amendment No. 167 puts it beyond doubt that enforcement notices issued under the Bill can relate to all or any elements of historic heritage protected under it and are also available to ensure that the various licensable activities regulated under the Bill can be the subject of enforcement notices regardless of whether a particular known element of historic heritage is involved. Dáil amendment No. 168 clarifies that an enforcement notice can require the cessation of a licensable activity until such time that the activity is carried out under and in accordance with a licence.

Dáil amendment No. 164 provides for the erection and removal of signs at monuments. These signs may be to inform members of the public of their responsibilities at monuments or to provide explanatory and interpretive information for a given monument. An important part of this provision makes it clear that if a person is charged with an offence under the enacted Bill, it will not be a defence for the person to prove that at the time the offence was committed, the monument was not the subject of a sign under this proposed section.

For the purposes of the protection and proper management of historic heritage, Dáil amendments Nos. 170 and 171 include Tailte Éireann and any authority in another state that has responsibilities as regards historic heritage to the list of bodies under section 215. Section 221 lists the ways by which a notice may be given to a person, for example, by delivering it in person or by registered post. Dáil amendment No. 172 ensures that a notice may be given in more than one way.

Dáil amendment No. 173 is primarily a result of discussions that took place earlier in the year in the Seanad. It will require a report to issue within three years of the Bill’s enactment on the operation and implementation of the Bill with regular reports issuing every five years thereafter. Copies of the report will be laid before the Houses and published on my Department’s website.

Amendment No. 19 refers to the new Dáil amendment No. 173 concerning a review of the operation of the Act, which is an extremely welcome amendment. My amendment would insert a new subsection requiring that not less than six months following the laying of the report before each House of the Oireachtas, the Minister shall make himself or herself available to the relevant joint Oireachtas committee for the purpose of discussing the report. I envisage that the current Minister would, of course, be happy to do that but would like to see it as a legal obligation on all future Ministers.

I consider this amendment to be unnecessary and it is ambiguous in its language and intent. For example, what exactly does making oneself available involve in a strictly legal context? What has been proposed here is simply not workable. I am sure the Minister of the day will be more than happy to discuss the operation of the enacted Bill with all interested parties and especially with any relevant Oireachtas committee. Given this, I cannot accept the amendment.

Dáil amendment No. 175 relates to section 41(6) of the Bill and section 4(4) of the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, and has been introduced to ensure the necessary cost protection provisions work as intended. In summary, it will mean that the cost protection afforded under section 3 of the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 will apply to legal proceedings relating to a licence granted under section 151 of the enacted Bill.

The Minister of State will recall that when Deputy Cian O'Callaghan pointed out at the select committee before the summer recess that there were issues and concerns with the original formulation of the Bill and how it referenced the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, the Minister of State brought forward amendments in a welcome effort to respond to that, which acknowledged that there was an issue with the original formulation of the Bill. However, despite the welcome correction and inclusion of the licence in the lists of section 4(4) of the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, there are still issues and the changes made do not serve to provide for compliant cost protection.

There are two key issues remaining. First, the Minister of State's amendment inserting the necessary change into the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, previously highlighted as needed, limits the application of the cost protection only to licences granted under section 151. The second of the amendments arises given that, because of the way the core Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 provisions are drafted, there is an unlawful and problematic further requirement to prove environmental damage. The first issue can be easily resolved by a broadening of this to both leases and licences relating to historic monuments and archaeological heritage granted under the Act, or by explaining on the record of the Oireachtas why the Minister of State does not propose to do so and by explaining the gaps which will, therefore, arise in the implementation of the access to justice obligations.

The second issue is that the way the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 cost protection provisions operate is to incorrectly require the environmental damage, as defined in the Act, to be proven.

However, the European Court of Justice, in the north-east pylons case No. C470/16 as far back as March 2018, indicated in response to the preliminary reference questions Nos. 6 and 7 from the Irish courts that the imposition of this test was not lawful. The Irish Legislature has failed to address this in more than five and a half years since. The Irish courts have, therefore, subsequently interpreted the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 provisions as being a partial implementation for cost protection only where such damage can be proven. This is clearly a problematic situation and one we would trust the Minister of State would not want to perpetuate as the legislation is non-compliant with our obligations on access to justice. In his written response to the select committee on Report and Final Stages, the Minister of State appeared to intend relying on the correction of the underlying issues in the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 provisions at some uncertain point in future. Respectfully, we do not consider this acceptable as the Aarhus Bill he mentioned has been promised since 2014 and has still not surfaced. The planning Bill will also clearly not be enacted until the new year and it will be beset with extraordinary controversy given an unacceptable number of changes proposed to cost provisions in the planning and development Bill approved in Cabinet. The outstanding issues with the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 provisions are, therefore, likely to remain unresolved and it is uncertain when any enactment to correct them will commence.

Amendment No. 21 extends the scope of the cost protection to leases and licences granted in respect of historic monuments and archaeological heritage only but it makes clear that the unlawful environmental damage test does not apply to them.

Amendment No. 22 simply extends the scope to leases and licences but leaves the issues of the environmental damage test unresolved. I urge the Minister of State to accept at least one of these amendments, and I know that Environmental Pillar has written to him today highlighting these concerns.

Again, I recall that debate with Deputy O'Callaghan. I reiterate that the amendments made to the Bill relating to JR and cost protection follow advice from the senior advisory counsel of the Office of the Attorney General. I will make the following points on the proposed amendments to the Bill, as it currently stands, following Dáil amendment No. 173. Section 151 is the only provision that provides for the granting of a licence to carry out works to a monument or other licensable activities. For this reason I cannot accept an amendment stating that a licensable activity is authorised under another section or Part of the Bill. The reference in section 77 to a licence is not to a licence to carry out a licensable activity within the meaning of the Bill; rather it is to grant a licence under common law by the Minister or local authority as owner to occupy land forming part of a national monument, as might be granted in the case. For example, this would apply to a concert or other event taking place at such a monument. I have addressed this distinction previously and the legislation is completely clear on this as it stands. The other amendments proposed go far beyond the purpose of Dáil amendment No. 173 by altering the function and operation of the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. There is an Aarhus Convention Bill being prepared to provide for what some of the proposed amendments are seeking to achieve. Unfortunately, this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle. For these reasons I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Dáil Amendment No. 176 inserts a new section 239, amending section 1(e) of the Foreshore Act 1933. It is intended to provide a pathway for existing foreshore applications, received by the Minister under the Foreshore Act 1933, to move to the new regulatory system in the interests of maximising the opportunities available in the more modern consenting structures provided in the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. Under the new provisions proposed in this amendment, the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, may, at the request of the Minister or the applicant on its own initiative, take over a licence application made under the Foreshore Act 1933. If MARA does so, any determination that has been made regarding the application under the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 can be adopted by MARA to avoid duplication of effort and delay in handling the application.

The ability to transfer applications on hand to MARA will help limit the period where a dual consenting structure remains in place and will assist in expediting the winding down of the existing foreshore consenting regime. The benefit to the applicant is that his or her existing application can be treated more expeditiously under a more modern, streamlined legislative system. An application cannot be transferred to MARA if a material change is being made to the application, as that will constitute a new application that must be made afresh. Similarly, if information provided in the application is more than two years out of date, it cannot be transferred. If MARA is unable to accept an application, it will continue to be dealt with under the existing foreshore consenting regime.

Amendment No. 23 proposes to delete clause 1 of paragraph d(i) as inserted by Government amendment No. 181. The rationale for the removal of this provision is that it removes the application of Chapter 2 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to a lease made on or after 1 October 2017, under section 2 of the 1993 Act authorising the lessee to, for the purposes of the development of one or more of the Acts referred to in that section. Could this disapplication of a lease refer to petroleum exploration? If this is the case, it is completely inappropriate.

Amendment No. 24 seeks to ensure there is no ambiguity on the relevant date for the purposes of the judicial review if MARA adopts a determination on appropriate assessment from the foreshore or other bodies. We are concerned there will be arguments and lack of clarity on this, which will only delay matters. Clarity is preferable and in everyone's interest.

Amendment No. 25 seeks to address the concern that the implication of MARA making the decision on the licence under the Maritime Area Planning Act instead of the foreshore legislation will mean the JR window is shortened to eight weeks, rather than the normal three months. Given the potential for confusion and the issue arising with the move of the application and decision to another decision-making body - MARA rather than the foreshore unit - we think this is eminently sensible insurance provision. It will mitigate and possibly avoid the level of further complications, which can arise with valid late JR challenges arising from the normal judicial review window. The amendment allows for the normal three month window, which is in everyone's interest, and avoids another concerning impact on the public's interest by limiting the JR window. It is in everyone's interest to ensure decisions are made lawfully. As the Minister of State with responsibility for heritage, he, in particular, should know and appreciate this from the perspective of marine biodiversity and the compliant advancement of renewables that might otherwise be delayed.

The effect of the amendments proposed by the Senators would be to provide that MARA must publish any determination under the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 as if it had been made by MARA and that any application for JR of such determination shall run from the date of such publication. In addition, it is proposed that application for leave to apply for JR of the determination could be made up to three months after publication by MARA. The amendments are unnecessary, as it has already been provided for at subsection 5A(a), that where an application transfers to MARA, the application will be treated as if it were made to MARA and all the relevant provisions of the Maritime Area Planning Act, as amended, shall apply. Section 117(6) of that Act provides that when a decision is made that an AA is required MARA informs the applicant, who is required to prepare a Natura impact statement and must give public notice that a Natura impact statement has been submitted and invite submissions. Section 122(4) of the Maritime Area Planning Act provides that where MARA has carried out an AA, it shall publish a notice of the carrying out of the assessment, along with the determination, on its website. Section 122(5) of the Act provides that whenever a notice is published by MARA, the validity of the decision by MARA to which the notice refers may be questioned by way of an application for judicial review under order 84.

Section 131(5) provides that application for leave to apply for JR in respect of decisions or acts by MARA must be made within eight weeks of the publication of the decision or the doing of the Act.

The amendments proposed by the Senators would mean a period of three months in which leave to apply can be made would only apply in respect of a determination where an application had been transferred from the foreshore system. This would not only be inconsistent with the treatment of licence applications generally under the Act; it is also unnecessary given the existing provisions that any application transferred from the foreshore system to MARA will be treated as if it were an application directly to MARA. Accordingly, any determination transferred from the foreshore system and published by MARA will benefit from eight weeks for leave to apply for judicial review from the date of publication by MARA, despite the determination having been made by the Minister. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendments.

Dáil Amendment No. 177 amends the Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945 by the insertion of two new sections into that Act relating to the Lough Corrib navigation trustees. The trustees were established under the Drainage (Ireland) Act 1856 for the purpose of managing the Lough Corrib navigation. They consist of eight councillors drawn from Galway City Council, Galway County Council and Mayo County Council, who are supported by those councils in their work. They are responsible for the maintenance of navigation aids and some piers on the Corrib system, the Eglinton Canal system and associated walkways, tow paths, lock gates and boundary walls. The purpose of these amendments is to address a legal anomaly that has come to light caused by the repeal of some of the Drainage (Ireland) Act 1856, under which the trustees were established. Subsequent to the 1856 Act, another Act, the Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945, reconstituted the board of trustees but did not amend, vary or restate the functions of the trustees as provided for in the 1856 Act.

Since the matter was raised, my Department sought and received legal advice on the implications of the repeal of the 1856 Act. This advice indicated that while the trustees continue to exist by virtue of the 1945 Act, the legal basis to carry out the functions previously conferred on them by the 1856 Act needs to be reinstated at the earliest opportunity. The amendments to the Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945 do just that. They reinstate the powers and functions of the trustees, albeit in a modern way, and are akin to functions of Waterways Ireland under the Shannon Navigation Act 1990, by which that body manages the Shannon navigation. In summary, those functions include the power to manage and hold land, prepare schemes for tolls and licensing and delegate some functions to the three relevant councils, namely, Galway City, Galway County and Mayo County councils. In addition, for the purpose of managing and maintaining the navigation, they reinstate the power to enter on lands for the purpose of carrying out work on the navigation, using or occupying lands for the purpose of undertaking such work, and undertaking inspections and surveys of the navigation. They also set out the arrangements to apply when notifying landowners of the need to access lands for these purposes and arrangements for compensation for loss or damage that may arise in consequence of the trustees carrying out their functions in this regard.

To reiterate, the provisions are simply reinstating the functions previously conferred on the trustees by the 1856 Act. It is proposed that they will come into operation on enactment of the Bill. I hope Members will support this essential amendment.

Amendments Nos. 178 to 185, inclusive, are amendments to the Planning and Development Act 2000. Regarding amendments Nos. 178 and 179, following commencement of Part 8 of and Schedule 12 to the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 in October 2022, a potential technical requirement has arisen for an additional planning permission for projects in the maritime area that already have the previously required consents in place, both in Ireland and, in the case of certain cables, in other jurisdictions. These amendments address that issue.

Part 21 of the Planning and Development Act sets out certain types of developments in the maritime area that require planning permission. It does not contain any specific exemptions for developments that may already have other consents, particularly in the outer maritime area beyond the foreshore. Consequently, notwithstanding that foreshore consents have been obtained, in addition to an overarching project-of-common-interest approval, an additional planning permission requirement emerges for certain types of projects, most notably cables, including interconnection. Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 address these potential additional consent requirements. They are limited in their application to those developments that already have a foreshore consent in place and, in the case of larger-scale developments in the maritime area, that have had an EIA or AA, or both, carried out for the entire project. This will ensure the State remains in compliance with EU environmental law and that the amendments cannot be used to circumvent such obligations, where they arise.

Section 182A of the Planning and Development Act 2000 deals specifically with electricity transmission developments, transmission being high-voltage cables, being carried out by statutory undertakers. Amendment No. 178 inserts a new section 241, which amends section 182A of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to provide that where a proposed development for electricity transmission infrastructure is licensed under the Foreshore Act 1933 before the commencement of this section, it does not require an additional consent under section 182A. The section further provides that an EIA and-or AA must have been carried out before the issue of the licence and that the provisions of that licence shall be deemed to apply to the development as a whole. This section also makes a technical amendment to section 182A to clarify that the requirement for landowner consent prior to an application under section 182A for development in the maritime area refers to land in the maritime area. This is to avoid any conflict with provisions dealing with land in the area of terrestrial planning.

Amendment No. 179 is a linked amendment that inserts a new section 182AA into the Planning and Development Act 2000. Section 182AA provides that an application under section 182A of the 2000 Act is not necessary where an application is made to An Bord Pleanála under section 291 of that Act in respect of a development in the maritime area for the purposes of electricity transmission. This is a clarifying amendment that removes an anomaly whereby consent may be required under both sections 291 and 182A.

Amendment No. 180 deals with a transitional matter and provides a new section 243, which inserts a new section 278A into the Planning and Development Act 2000. Section 278A disapplies the requirement for a maritime area consent, MAC, for strategic infrastructure development where the prospective applicant has entered into pre-application consultations with An Bord Pleanála before 1 October 2022. This is to ensure projects that entered the planning system under section 37B of the Act prior to the commencement of Part 21 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which introduced the requirement for a MAC, can continue in the consent process notwithstanding the introduction of a new marine planning regime. This exemption is only applicable to strategic infrastructure development where the subsequent application for development consent is made before 1 October 2024. This ensures that where a development is not completed within the required timeframes, the obligations under the new maritime planning regime will apply.

Amendment No. 181 inserts a new section 244 amending section 280 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The amendment is intended to further address transition issues in the move from the system operating under the Foreshore Act 1933 to the new marine planning system provided for in the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. These provisions deal with the situation of projects that were under way at the time of the commencement of Part 8 of the 2021 Act on 1 October 2022. Part 8 inserted Part 21 into the Planning and Development Act 2000, bringing the new maritime planning regime into operation. This amendment clarifies that the new provisions in Part 21 relating to development in the nearshore area do not apply to projects that are fully consented but have not yet commenced construction, projects that are under construction but not completed and projects that have been completed, as long as the development in question is the subject of either a lease or a licence made or granted before 1 October 2017. This ensures such projects will not be not subject to the revised legislative requirements introduced after they completed the consenting process in place at the time. However, this disapplication only applies where the development in question is completed within five years of the commencement of this section. Outside of that, the process will need to be restarted as a new application and an application for a MAC must be made.

Amendment No. 183 inserts a new section 246, amending section 285 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. This is a mirror provision to section 244. It addresses the same transition issues arising in respect of the move from the existing regime operating under the Foreshore Act 1933 to the new marine planning system provided in the Marine Area Planning Act 2021, but deals with development in the maritime area other than the nearshore. Similar to section 244, this amendment clarifies that the new provisions in Part 21 applying to development in the maritime area do not apply to projects that are fully consented but have not yet commenced construction, projects which are under construction but not completed and projects that have been completed, as long as the development in question is the subject of either a lease or a licence made or granted before 1 October 2017. This ensures that such projects are not subject to the revised legislative requirements introduced after they had completed the consenting process in place at that time. The disapplication only applies where the development in question is completed within five years of the commencement of this section. Outside of that, the process will need to be restarted as a new application and an application for a MAC will need to be made. This provision differs from section 244 in that it goes on to specify that any provisions of the lease or licence in place shall be deemed to apply to the development as a whole. This is included as a result of the fact that, from 1 October 2022, the maritime area in which authorisation is required has been extended to encompass the entire exclusive economic zone. Accordingly, any provisions attached to a lease or licence made or granted under the Foreshore Act 1933 are now to be considered as extending to the new development generally. This is principally relevant to development such as cabling or pipelines.

Amendments Nos. 182 and 184 insert sections 245 and 247, which amend sections 281(2) and 286 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. They provide technical amendments required as a result of the amendment of section 287 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and to ensure that the definition of “land” in sections 281(2)(b) and (d) and section 286 is clarified as meaning “land in the maritime area”. This is in order to avoid any conflict with provisions dealing with land in the area of terrestrial planning.

Amendment No. 185 inserts a new subsection in section 287 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to provide that applications for offshore renewable energy-related port infrastructure can enter pre-application consultations with An Bord Pleanála in the absence of a maritime area consent, MAC. The applicants for any such development will, however, be required to have a MAC in order to proceed with submitting a full planning application in accordance with section 291. This provision will shorten the overall consenting timelines for ports by enabling the MAC process and the preplanning process to run concurrently. It will ensure that, from a consenting perspective, the port infrastructure necessary for offshore energy development can be in place in time to meet the State’s 2030 target.

Amendment No. 26 seeks to delete the new section 247 of the Bill, which inserts a new section 182AA in the Planning and Development Act 2000. It would provide that section 182A, which governs applications for consent relating to electricity transmission lines, would not apply to developments comprising electricity transmissions, or for the purposes of electricity transmissions, where such development is the subject of an application for permission made to the board under section 291. What was the rationale for this amendment? In what circumstances does the Minister of State envisage it being used?

Amendment No. 27 also amends the new section 247 of the Bill. It proposes to insert a new section 182AA into the Planning and Development Act 2000 by deleting the phrase "or comprising of" from the provision around the disapplication of section 182A. It is does not appear that developments which may include electricity transmission would be able to get this exemption. It is something which could lead to a circumvention of the proper planning process by including aspects of electricity transition transmission within a development.

Amendment No. 28 seeks to delete the proposed section 248, which inserts a new section 278A into the Planning and Development Act 2000 providing that Chapters 2 and 3 of the Act would not apply to strategic infrastructure development which is awaiting development permission. Chapters 2 and 3 include such important processes as obligations to obtain permission and consult the board. Let us be very clear. Strategic infrastructure investment includes data centres. Why is this being included in the Bill? What is the rationale for that? There is no good reason why we should disapply large sections of our planning law from so-called strategic infrastructure, especially when such infrastructure is often carbon intensive.

Amendment No. 29 is an alternative to amendment No. 28. It would nullify the intended effects of the section.

Amendment No. 30 is proposed for same rationale as amendment No. 23.

Amendment No. 31 seeks to amend the proposed amendment to section 280 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 by reducing the timespan for disapplication, as already discussed under amendments Nos. 23 and 30, from five years to one year. I have outlined my concerns with these provisions and want to reduce the timespan of their effect.

Amendment No. 32 is similar to previous amendments and seeks to remove the disapplication to licences.

Amendment No. 33 seeks to amend the proposed amendment to section 287 of the 2000 Act. It would provide that a prospective applicant for permission to carry out developments consisting of port infrastructure to facilitate the deployment, maintenance or operation of offshore renewable energy infrastructure may consult the board in accordance with subsection (1), notwithstanding that the prospective applicant is not the holder of a maritime area consent granted for the occupation of a maritime site for the purposes of such proposed developments. It would provide that a prospective applicant shall consult, rather than may consult, the board and, again, it places an obligation rather having something as an option. In the context of increasing our marine protected areas while also developing renewable energy, we should consider that the board will have an important role to play.

Amendment No. 34 inserts a new paragraph in the amendments to section 287 of the 2000 Act. It would provide that nothing in the subsection will be construed as enabling a prospective applicant for maritime area consent to apply without first meeting their obligation under subsection (1) to consult the board prior to seeking such consent. The amendment is an alternative to amendment No. 33 and is important because we need a provision that ensures the obligation to consult the board before attempting to get maritime area consent remains.

Are Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 in this group?

The Senators are suggesting that we either remove or qualify Dáil amendment 179, thereby limiting its application. This would leave in place on the Statute Book a legal anomaly requiring a double development consent under two separate provisions and tie up resources on the applicant’s and the State’s side in processing unnecessary applications.

In regard to Dáil amendment No. 180 which provides a new section 243, the effect of the amendments proposed by the Senators would be to not disapply the requirement for a MAC. This would cause significant delays to strategic infrastructure projects of benefit to the State which have already commenced the planning process and entered into pre-application consultations with An Bord Pleanála. Such applicants did so in good faith under the legislative regime in place at the time. It would be unfair and unnecessary to insist that such applicants now need to seek a MAC - a requirement that was not in place when they commenced the process - and then return to An Bord Pleanála to commence the planning consent process all over again. I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 181 made by the Dáil inserts a new section 244, amending section 285 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The effect of the amendment proposed by the Senators would be to remove the reference to leases. That would mean that any project that was the subject of a lease under the Foreshore Act 1933 made after 1 October 2017 would still require a MAC under the Maritime Area Planning Act, despite having completed the process in place at the time. A lease is a consent to occupy and a MAC is, in effect, an updated version of that. Insisting that an applicant reapplies for consent to occupy despite having already received that consent is not fair to the applicant and is not the best use of limited public resources. The reference to the fifth anniversary in amendment No. 181 was chosen because planning consent normally lasts for five years. Changing this to one year, as suggested by the Senators, is not realistic given how long construction of large-scale projects can take.

Amendment No. 183 inserts a new section 246, amending section 285 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. This is a mirror provision to that in amendment No. 181. The result of the amendment proposed by the Senators would be to remove the reference to leases made on or after 1 October 2017. As in amendment No. 181, this would mean that any project which was the subject of a lease under the Foreshore Act 1933 made on or before that date would still require a MAC under the Maritime Area Planning Act, despite having completed the process in place at the time. As I have already noted, insisting that an applicant reapply for consent to occupy despite having already received that consent is not fair to the applicant and not the best use of limited public resources. I therefore cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 185 made by the Dáil amends section 287 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. It provides that applications for offshore renewable energy-related port infrastructure can enter pre-application consultations with An Bord Pleanála in the absence of a MAC. The effect of this amendment proposed by the Senators to this provision would be to ensure that a person could not apply for a MAC without entering into pre-application consultation with An Bord Pleanála first. This is not necessary. The normal procedure is to apply for a MAC first, and a MAC must be held before applying for development consent. The amendment made by the Dáil allows, as an exception, that pre-application consultation may commence in certain circumstances without a MAC. The applicants for these developments will, however, be required to have a MAC in order to proceed with submitting a full planning application in accordance with section 291.

Accepting the Senators' amendment, to insist that a pre-application consultation is required before a MAC, would reverse the entire application process approved by the Oireachtas and laid out in the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. I therefore cannot accept this amendment.

Dáil amendments Nos. 186 and 187 are technical amendments concerning the recently passed Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023. I will take them together.

As the House will be aware, the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023 was enacted in July of this year following the restoration of the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016 from the previous 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 during the course of debate on 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 in order that this Act can be fully commenced. Under Oireachtas Standing Orders for restored Bills, these could be accommodated only 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 historical 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. The amendments passed by the Dáil last month and now proposed for Seanad approval are therefore as follows.

Amendment No. 186 would 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 prevents a scenario whereby the Minister could refer matters to himself or herself.

Amendment No. 187 would 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".

I trust that these technical amendments are acceptable to the House.

Dáil amendment No. 188 is a technical amendment to provide for the reference to the "Act of 2001" in the chapter to be the Valuation Act 2001.

Sections 28(14) and 28(15) were amended to remove the terms "making a rate" and "rate made" and to replace those terms with "levying a rate" and "rate levied", which conform with the wording of section 4 of the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019.

Sections 28(14) and 28(15) of the Valuation Act 2001 provide that amendments to the valuation list have full force from the relevant date during the year and that potential consequential overpayments or underpayments of rates are dealt with by the rating authority. Section 38 of the Valuation Act 2001 relates to amendments of the valuation list to take account of decisions of the Valuation Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. The effect of this new subsection is to amend section 38 to allow for decisions from those bodies having full force from the appropriate dates and to allow the rating authority to deal with consequential overpayments or underpayments of rates. This would be consistent with the actions to be taken by the rating authority on foot of notification of the outcome of revisions of valuation during the year.

Section 53(11) is to be amended to reinstate the temporal link that was inadvertently removed in the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019 such that the Commissioner of Valuation issues the notice from section 53(12) of the Act of 2001 at the same time as the copy of the global valuation certificate.

One of the purposes of commencing the 2019 Act before the second half of this year is in order to comply with an existing legal requirement. Rate limitation orders are legally required to be made in October or November of this year as part of the revaluation programme being undertaken by Tailte Éireann.

The Valuation Acts 2001 to 2015 provide for a comprehensive revaluation of all commercial and industrial property in the State. The Valuation Office has been undertaking this process for some years and revaluations have now been completed in 23 of the 31 local authorities to date. Tailte Éireann has confirmed that revaluations for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, the third revaluation for that local authority, and Clare, Donegal, Galway, Kerry and Mayo county councils and Galway City Council, the first revaluations for those six west-coast local authorities, are due to be completed this year and be effective from 2024. Rate limitation orders are required to be made for each of those seven local authorities in the second half of the year.

The amendment to section 56 is a transitional provision required to cater for the fact that the seven local authorities to which the rate limitation orders will apply will not have determined their annual rates of valuation, ARVs, for the preceding year, that is, this year, pursuant to section 3. Those local authorities determined their ARVs for this year pursuant to section 103(7) of the Local Government Act 2001. This situation will arise only this year and will not impact rate limitation orders being made in future years.

Dáil amendment No. 193 makes precise amendments to section 19A of the Local Government Act 2001, as inserted by the Local Government (Maternity Protection and Other Measures for Members of Local Authorities) Act 2022. Section 19A permits a person to take the place temporarily of a member of a local authority who is absent from the local authority for a period due to the taking of maternity leave or due to illness or other reasons of good faith.

Following the enactment of this provision, a question was raised about its implications for the exercise of functions of a member of a local authority, specifically about voting in Seanad elections by either, or both, the temporary substitute and-or the member causing the absence. Legal advice on the matter was sought and was provided by the Attorney General. The Attorney General suggested that, while no constitutional difficulties arise in this matter as regards the 2022 Act, consideration be given as to whether it is appropriate to amend the 2022 Act to make express provision dealing with the exercise of the functions of a member during the temporary absence caused by a member taking maternity leave or being ill or by good faith absence. The short, precise amendments proposed to section 19A in this Bill are to make clear that a councillor who has caused a temporary absence and sought a temporary substitute could not continue to exercise the functions of councillor during the period of his or her absence. The temporary substitute fulfils the functions of the councillor causing the temporary absence for the period of that absence.

Although the amendment refers to councillor functions generally, the amendments proposed address the specific question raised in respect of voting in Seanad elections as to whether the temporary substitute or the councillor causing the absence, or both, would be able to vote. The amendments proposed put this issue beyond doubt, ensuring that only one vote would be exercised in Seanad elections.

I hope Members can accept this amendment.

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 relate to the proposed amendment to section 19A of the Local Government Act 2001. I have a query on this. It states that where a local authority member has a temporary absence, he or she shall not perform any functions as a member unless and until he or she returns to office. What is the rationale for this amendment? I am thinking of situations where members may go on maternity leave but may begin, just before they officially return to work, on constituency cases or clinics, or where there may be some crossover. Can the Minister of State clarify whether the restriction only applies to official functions as councillors, such as attending and voting at meetings, or does it attempt to go after all functions, including more informal functions such as clinics? On reading this amendment, it appears to apply to, say, party members and particular party policy in terms of how people engage with their role if they are on official absence. I have a concern about inserting it there, especially in the case, for example, of an Independent councillor easing themselves back to work after and not yet fully recommitting after an illness. What is the rationale for that amendment and how does the Minister of State envisage it working in practice?

I understand this would only be in the case of where, in a temporary absence, the councillor selects a councillor to take over that temporary absence. That is my understanding of it. I think the Senator is referring to the case where a councillor is temporarily absent for a specified period but does not replace that seat with a temporary replacement on the council.

I will speak to the note here as well. I am not in a position to support the Seanad amendment to Dáil amendment No. 193. While the proposed amendment is the same as the first part of Dáil amendment No. 193 regarding an amendment to section 19A of the Local Government Act 2001, it removes the important second part of the Dáil amendment. The precise Dáil amendments proposed to section 19A are to clarify, in the first instance, that the temporary substitute fulfils the functions of a councillor causing a temporary absence for the period of the absence. It clarifies also that a councillor who has caused a temporary absence and sought a temporary substitute could not continue to exercise their function of a councillor during the period of that absence. This is also to avoid a situation arising where the both the councillor who has caused a temporary absence and the temporary substitute could try to exercise the same function. I have given the example of a vote in the Seanad elections, which is where the requirement for these clarifying amendments first arose to ensure that only one vote could be exercised. I am not in a position to support this amendment.

Dáil amendment No. 194 is a technical amendment to provide for the reference to the “Act of 2019” to mean the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019.

Dáil amendment No. 195 substitutes section 4 of the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019 and contains a number of technical amendments. I will outline the notable amendments.

First is an amendment to include reference to an existing valuation list under section 4(1). An “existing valuation list” refers to valuations carried out prior to revaluations under the Valuation Act 2001. To date, 23 local authorities have been revalued under Part 5 of the Valuation Act 2001 and a further six local authorities are being revalued this year. These local authorities are subject to valuation lists caused to be published by the Commissioner of Valuation under section 23 of that Act. The remaining local authorities are subject to an "existing valuation list" and would not be able to levy rates under this Act without this amendment.

Second is an amendment to the formula calculating the amount of rates to be levied under section 4(2) to include reference to a date on which such calculation is made. There is currently ambiguity in that the section does not identify the valuation list on a specific date to be used in the levying of the rate. The rate is to be calculated on the last day of the previous local financial year, that is, 31 December.

Third is an amendment to section 4(3) to provide that the rate is due and payable on the first day of the financial year rather than explicitly stating 1 January as there is provision in legislation to enable the Minister to change the start of the local authority financial year to another date.

Fourth, the use of the terms “owner” and “occupier” in section 4 is considered to be problematic and legal advice received by the Department confirms the need to consider the appropriateness of the use of the terms. Section 4(4) has been amended to refer to a “liable person” where appropriate.

Fifth is an amendment to section 4(5) to include that a rates bill shall be given by a rating authority to a liable person in four circumstances: first, at the beginning of the year when the local authority imposes rates; second, where a valuation of a relevant property is amended pursuant to section 28 of the Valuation Act 2001 where there is a revision of a valuation during the year; third, where a valuation of a relevant property is amended on foot of the outcome of an appeal pursuant to section 38 of the Valuation Act 2001; or fourth, where there is a subsequent liable person during the year, for example, a person who was not the liable person who received the original rates bill at the beginning of the year. All circumstances exist currently but there is no legal basis for circumstances two through four.

Sixth, reference to section 38 of the Valuation Act 2001 is being included in section 4(4)(b). Section 38 of the Valuation Act 2001 provides for amendment of the valuation list following a decision of the Valuation Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court. The power to amend the rate levied during the year on foot of the outcome of the appeal was omitted by oversight in the original Act and this is now being remedied.

Amendments to section 5 are intended to provide that a rate book prepared by a local authority, which may be stored electronically, will satisfy the requirements under section 65 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838. This will effectively remove the antiquated requirement from the 1838 Act of making a physical rate book.

Another is an amendment to remove section 9(10). This removes the requirement of the local authority to inform an applicant in writing within three months of the outcome of their vacancy abatement application. This is necessary because local authorities will not make a vacancy abatement determination in many cases until the end of the financial year.

Amendments to section 10 include the following: first, an amendment to section 10(1) to clarify that the reference to a database (singular) does not preclude local authorities from using other databases, for example, customer, billing databases ordinarily used in the rates function; second, an amendment to section 10(2) to insert a field on the database for the name of the person entitled to occupy an unoccupied relevant property, for example, if vacant, where there is no occupier; third, a new subsection (2A)(a) to be inserted to provide that the rating authority is notified by the liable person when that person becomes aware that any particular entered in the database in relation to themselves or the relevant property is incorrect or has ceased to be correct; and fourth, a new subsection (2A)(b) to be inserted to provide for a sanction on a liable person for failing to notify under section 10(2A)(a) without reasonable excuse, such sanction to be that the person is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine.

Section 11 of the Local Government Rate and Other Matters Act 2019 is a restatement of sections 32(2) and 32(4) of the Local Government Reform Act 2014. The original intention of the provision in the 2014 Act was to ensure that any unpaid rates due at the time of change of occupation or ownership are paid and to impose a duty to inform a rating authority of a change in occupation or ownership. Subsequent to the enactment of the 2014 Act, there were significant difficulties with the interpretation and implementation of section 32. For reasons of expediency and pressure to publish the 2019 Bill, copies of sections 32(2) and 32(4) of the 2014 Act were inserted to fulfil the instructions in the heads of the general scheme.

Section 11, that is, the part copy of section 32 from the 2014 Act on duty to inform, is to be replaced with a new provision to oblige a liable person to inform the local authority when there is a change of person liable for rates in respect of relevant property.

This amendment provides that a person who ceases to be a liable person or who becomes a liable person or who changes their status as a liable person shall give notice in writing of that fact to the local authority. A person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine. Sections 10 on the database of relevant properties and 11 on the duty to inform the rating authority of transfer of relevant property are thus to be simplified and to work together to provide that information crucial to the effective levying of rates is maintained and updated as necessary.

Dáil amendment No. 200 provides for the prescribing of the rate of interest on overdue rates in case the interest rate specified in the Act is to be changed in the future. Section 13, as currently worded, provides that an owner selling a relevant property would be liable for all outstanding rates and interest imposed under the Act, which may include rates and interest levied on another party, for example, a separate occupier of the relevant property. The section is being amended to clarify that the liable person who owns a relevant property and who proposes to sell the property shall, before the sale, pay to the local authority any rates and interest imposed under the Act which are due and payable by that liable person only, and not due and payable by a previous occupier.

The provision that taxes or charges due and payable by a liable person are required to be paid before the sale of the property is consistent with a similar provision in respect of the local property tax and previously the household charge and the non-principal private residence charge. A new subsection (3) provides for a sanction to be imposed on a liable person should that person sell a relevant property without first discharging the requirement to pay any rates and accrued interest due and payable to the local authority. Such sanction is to be that the person is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.

Dáil amendment No. 202 is an amendment to subsection (1) to refer to "an owner's capacity as a liable person" rather than an "owner" to keep consistency with the Act. A new subsection (2A) is inserted to ensure that a charge on a property does not remain a charge post sale, meaning that a charge from a previous owner’s unpaid rates does not remain on the property post sale.

Section 17 is being amended to clarify that a warrant issued by a judge of the District Court is not required to enter a relevant property that does not contain a dwelling within. A drafting error in the subsection as it stands references the power to enter a relevant property as being subject to subsection (3) whereas the correct reference should have been to subsection (2).

The policy intention is that an authorised officer may, for the purposes of assessing an application under section 9 - an application for abatement of rates in respect of a vacant property - enter at all reasonable times a relevant property and inspect the property. In addition, the authorised officer may not enter a dwelling, or a property other than a relevant property, other than with either the consent of the occupier or pursuant to a warrant issued by the District Court.

A new section 19A is being included to ensure that commencement of this Act will not adversely impact sections 65 and 106 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838. This new section is deemed to be required as section 61 of 1838 Act, which currently provides for the levying of rates, is to be repealed and this has consequential impact on sections 65 and 106.

I am nearly there.

Section 65 of the 1838 Act provides for the making of a rates book. While section 5 of this Act provides that a rate book prepared by a local authority, which may be stored electronically, will satisfy the requirements under section 65 of 1838 Act and remove the requirement to make a physical rate book, it is not intended to repeal the original provision.

Section 106 of the 1838 Act provides for the right to appeal the rate. It is not intended to repeal this right. Ratepayers generally avail of the appeal process under Part 7 of the Valuation Acts 2001 to 2015. If a ratepayer is unhappy with the amount of rates being levied in respect of his or her property, he or she may avail of the valuation appeal process to have the valuation reassessed. Rates are only payable in respect of properties which are valued and appear in the valuation list. Accordingly, it is understood that the right of appeal against the rate itself under the 1838 Act is rarely exercised. However, it was not the intention to remove the right to appeal the making of the rate under the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838. Section 19A ensures that the right of appeal is not inadvertently removed.

Dáil amendment No. 205 is a technical amendment to delete paragraph (a) of section 21 as this amendment is now included in amendments to the Valuation Act 2001 proposed in this Act.

Dáil amendment No. 206, a technical amendment to repeal section 29 of the Local Government Act 1946, is required as this appeal was inadvertently omitted from the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019. Section 29 provides for the making of the rate, as one rate for the whole year, and that the rate shall be collected every year in two equal moieties. It was intended to repeal that section as the provision was in conflict with and intended to be replaced by sections 4(8), 4(9) and 5 of the Act of 2019.

This is not just a Bill about the historic and archaeological heritage, we are also dealing with historical legislation by the sound of it, including Acts from 1838 and so on. We are nearly there. Nobody has indicated they want to speak to group 28 after that very comprehensive answer.

We move on to group 29 relating to amendment to the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021, covering Dáil amendments Nos. 207 to 214, inclusive, and the Seanad Report Stage amendments Nos. 37 to 43, inclusive.

Amendments Nos. 207, 208 and 211 are technical amendments providing definitions. Amendment Nos. 209 inserts section 272 amending section 75 of the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 to disapply the requirement in section 75 to hold a maritime area consent, MAC, before applying for development consent. This applies where a prospective applicant has entered into pre-application consultations with An Bord Pleanála before 1 October 2022. The provision is intended to ensure that projects that entered the planning system under section 37B of the Act prior to the commencement of Part 21 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which introduced the requirement for a MAC, may continue in that consent process notwithstanding the introduction of a new marine planning regime. It is a partner provision to the amendment at section 243. This provision requires however that an application for a MAC must be made within two years of the grant of planning consent.

Amendment No. 210 provides for the addition of a new section 75A. This amendment is intended to ensure that where a valid development permission exists for the maritime space in the absence of valid consent to occupy that maritime space from the State, an avenue is available to regularise the situation and obtain such consent without having to reapply for a new planning permission. This provision is timebound and restricted to development permissions obtained prior to the establishment of the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, and requires that applications for related MACs in these circumstances be made to the MARA prior to 17 July 2024.

Amendment No. 212 inserts a new section 76A into the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 disapplying the provisions of sections 75 and 76 where a lease is made or a licence granted pursuant to an application for such lease or licence made under the Foreshore Act before the establishment of MARA thereby ensuring that there is no requirement for a MAC in such circumstances.

Amendment No. 214 is intended to address concerns which arose in the context of the maritime area consents issued under the Maritime Area Planning Act to phase 1 offshore renewable energy projects in December 2022. The Maritime Area Planning Act provides at section 144(1)(b) that if the holder of a MAC becomes subject to a winding-up order or if a receiver or examiner is appointed, the MAC automatically terminates. In the drafting of these phase 1 MACs it became apparent that the wording of section 144 as it stands has the unintended consequence of preventing the holder of a MAC from identifying a suitable replacement holder from taking control of the project in the event a termination occurs as per section 144 of the Act. The automatic termination provision is problematic for investors and financial institutions in the context of providing project finance and may pose a significant obstacle to financing and developing an offshore renewable energy, ORE, project.

The issue that this amendment seeks to address is that currently if an offshore wind farm gets into financial difficulty and becomes insolvent, the relevant authorisation granting the right to develop the project automatically terminates, without those lending money to facilitate the development of the project having an opportunity to remedy or rescue the project. The proposed amendment provides for a short suspension of the automatic termination provisions, which would potentially facilitate the identification of a suitable replacement entity, thus allowing an ORE project to continue. Under the proposed approach, MARA will have the right to suspend the automatic termination provisions and require a defaulting offshore wind farm developer to submit a proposal for assignment to a new holder, under the existing assignment provisions of section 85 of the Marine Area Planning Act.

It is envisaged that, on foot of these amendments, DECC and MARA will produce guidance in relation to the factors that MARA will or will not consider in reviewing, approving or refusing an assignment request under the new section 144A (4), (5) or (6)

Amendment No. 213 is a related minor technical amendment.

Amendment No. 37 seeks to amend Government amendment No. 209, which amends section 75 of the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 and really worryingly inserts a new subsection (4) which reaffirms that the need to obtain maritime area consent for a development under subsection (1) is not needed for maritime uses listed under Schedule 3 of that Act. One of those usages is "maritime usage for the purposes, or consisting, of the exploration of working of petroleum (within the meaning of Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960), or the restoration of the area in which such exploration for, or working of, such petroleum has taken place". We are in a climate and biodiversity emergency and the fact that the law provides an exemption for exploring for or working petroleum is unacceptable and we should now take the opportunity to remove this amendment.

Amendment No. 38 removes the new subsection (4), while amendment No. 39 inserts a new caveat in the form of paragraph (b) which would provide that:

Subject to paragraph (c), subsection (1) shall not apply where a prospective applicant for the development permission referred to in that subsection has, on or before 1 October 2022, entered into consultations with the Board (P) under section 37B of the Act of 2000.”.

Amendment No. 40 would explicitly exclude maritime usage "for the purposes, or consisting, of the exploration of working of petroleum (within the meaning of Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960) or the restoration of the area in which such exploration for, or working of, such petroleum has taken place" from the exemption.

Amendment No. 41 seeks to amend the new paragraph (c), inserted into section 175 which provides where a person is, for the time being, not required to be the holder of a MAC by virtue of the operation of paragraph (b), the person shall make the MAC application concerned before the second anniversary of the date of the grant of the permission concerned pursuant to Part 3 of the Act of 2000. This amendment would reduce the time period for the MAC application to the first anniversary of the date of permission being granted, as two years is simply too long a period after permission being granted to enforce a requirement to MAC.

Amendment No. 42 inserts a new subsection (2) into the proposed section 75A which would provide that subsection (1) shall not apply "to a proposed maritime usage referred to in that subsection that is the subject of a lease made under section 2 of the Act of 1933 that authorises the lessee to do, for the purposes of such usage, one or more than one of the acts referred to in that section.”

Finally, amendment No. 43 attempts to mitigate against some of the amendments to the Maritime Area Planning Act by inserting a new section 75B which would provide that "neither section 75 nor section 76 shall apply for a maritime usage in a part of the maritime area consisting of development (including the laying of cables or pipelines or both) authorised by a lease made under section 2 of the Act of 1933 pursuant to an application for such lease made under that Act before the establishment day.”

I cannot accept the Senators' suggestion to amend or delete the provisions at amendment No. 209, as it would result in an unfair situation where an applicant who entered preplanning consultations under the pathway to consent applicable in law at that time would then find, through no fault of their own, that he or she has to obtain a MAC and recommence the entire process, delaying the project considerably. The Dáil amendment as proposed does not eliminate the need for a MAC but allows that an application for a MAC must be made within two years of the grant of planning consent.

The Senators are also proposing that amendment 209 delete section 272 and restate it with some changes. They are suggesting that the disapplication of the requirement for a MAC shall not apply to a maritime usage consisting of, or for the purposes of, working with petroleum. The provision that usages listed at Schedule 3 of the Maritime Area Planning Act are exempt from the MAC requirement is already in place at section 75(4) of that Act and is merely being restated here. It is not a new provision that I am bringing forward now, and I do not intend to interfere with the list of activities at Schedule 3 which do not require a MAC, as this has already had ample consideration given to it in the preparation of that Schedule.

The Senators further propose that the subsequent application for a MAC must be made within 12 months rather than 24. I do not propose to accept this amendment, as the time period of two years inserted by the Dáil gives the applicant more time to regularise his or her position, while also allowing the newly established MARA to manage its MAC caseload more effectively. The Senators’ amendment to amendment No. 210 would have the effect that a person who holds a licence would still require a MAC under the Maritime Area Planning Act, despite having completed the process in place at the time. A licence is a consent to occupy and a MAC is, in effect, an updated version of that. Insisting that an applicant reapplies for consent to occupy despite having already received that consent is not fair to the applicant and is not the best use of limited public resources. I cannot accept this amendment.

Finally, Dáil amendment No. 212 provides for a new section 76A to the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021, disapplying the provisions of sections 75 and 76 (requiring a MAC prior to development permission and where development permission is not required) in circumstances where a lease is made or a licence granted before the establishment of MARA, that is, before it was possible to obtain a MAC. As I have already stated, removing the reference to licences here, as the Senators’ amendment proposes, would have the effect of requiring a person to reapply for consent to occupy, a consent which he or she already has in the form of a licence. I do not consider this fair and I cannot accept the Senators' amendment in this regard.

Acting Chairperson (Senator Gerry Horkan): We have now concluded all of our groupings discussion and will move on to the amendments tabled by Senators. I remind Senators that on Report Stage each non-Government amendment must be seconded.

We will now proceed to amendment No. 1 in the names of Senators Ruane, Black and Flynn which has already been discussed with group 2.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 25, line 29, after “historical” to insert, “and traditional ".

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 50, line 12, after “fit” to insert “, with a record of such consultations to be kept”.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 52, lines 39 and 40, to delete “, with the consent of the Minister, ".

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 53, line 10, to delete “, in so far as any requirement for an EIA is concerned”

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 108, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following subsection:

“(6) An elected member of a local authority may, by notice in writing, request a local authority, of which they are a member, to consider creating a public right of way, under section 206 or 207 of the Act of 2000, to a registered monument situated in the authority’s functional area.”.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 108, line 11, to insert "or subsection (6)" after "subsection (5)"

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 133, after line 35 to insert the following paragraph:

"(b) The disapplication effected by paragraph (a) shall not apply to activities specified under subsection (2)(c) or (d).".

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 147, line 30, after "non-compliance" to insert the following:

", in particular non-compliance which led to the destruction or significant alteration of an archaeological object, national monument or protected monument,"

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 148, lines 30 and 31, to delete "may, at his or her discretion," and substitute "shall".

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 157, line 19, after "persons" to insert the following:

"with requisite qualifications or expertise or archaeology, history, culture, architectural protection or protection of natural and built heritage,".

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 188, after line 35. to insert the following new subsection:

"(4) Not less than 6 months following the laying of the report before each House of the Oireachtas, the Minister shall make themselves available to the relevant Joint Oireachtas Committee for the purposes of discussing the report.".

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 193, to delete lines 23 and 24 and susbtitute the following:

"(q) a lease or licence granted under Parts 2 to 12 of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, and where the further requirements in respect of damage to the environment referenced in subsections (1) and (2) do not apply.".".

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 193, line 23, to delete "a licence granted under section 151" and substitute "a lease or licence granted under Parts 2 to 12".

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 194, to delete lines 20 to 25.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 194, to delete lines 20 to 25 and substitute the following:

"(b) Where, pursuant to paragraph (a), the MARA is treating a relevant application (F) as a relevant application (M), the MARA—

(i) may adopt any determination that has been made, before that treatment, under the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477 of 2011) in respect of the relevant application (F), and

(ii) in respect of a determination adopted under subparagraph (i), shall publish that determination as if that determination had been made by the MARA, and any application for Judicial Review of such determination shall run from the date of such publication by the MARA.".

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 195, between lines 7 and 8 to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (5) of section 131 of the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021, a period of 3 months beginning on the date of the publication of the decision shall apply to an application for leave to apply for judicial review under Order 84 in respect of a decision or other act or omission to which this section applies.".

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 198, to delete lines 20 to 25.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 198, line 22, to delete "comprising or".

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 198, to delete lines 26 to 35.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 198, line 28, to delete "not".

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 199, to delete lines 8 to 11.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 199, line 25, to delete "5th anniversary" and substitute "1st anniversary".

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 200, to delete lines 5 to 13 and substitute the following:

"(i) that was the subject of a licence granted, on or after 1 October 2017, under section 3 of the Act of 1933 authorising the licensee to do, for the purposes of the development, one or more than one of the acts referred to in that section,".

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 201, line 24, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 201, between lines 33 and 34 to insert the following new paragraph:

"(c) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as enabling a prospective applicant for maritime area consent to apply without first meeting their obligation under subsection (1) to consult with the Board prior to seeking such consent.".

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 204, to delete lines 6 to 12 and substitute the following:

"Amendment of section 19A of Act of 2001

261. Section 19A of the Act of 2001 is amended in subsection (1)(b), by the insertion of "to perform the member’s functions during the absence" after "temporary substitute".

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 204, to delete lines 6 to 12.

I move amendment No. 37:

In pages 211 and 212, to delete lines 24 to 35 in page 211 and in page 212 to delete lines 1 to 7 and substitute the following:

"Amendment of section 75 of Act of 2021

272. Section 75 of the Act of 2021 is amended in subsection (1), by the insertion of "and sections 75A and 76A" after "subsection (4)".

I move amendment No. 38:

In pages 211 and 212, to delete lines 24 to 35 in page 211 and in page 212 to delete lines 1 to 7.

I move amendment No. 39:

In pages 211 and 212, to delete lines 31 to 35 in page 211 and in page 212 to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:

"(b) Subject to paragraph (c), subsection (1) shall not apply where a prospective applicant for the development permission referred to in that subsection has, on or before 1 October 2022, entered into consultations with the Board (P) under section 37B of the Act of 2000.".

I move amendment No. 40:

In pages 211, line 30, after "Schedule 3" to insert ", except for proposed usage under paragraph 6 of that Schedule".

I move amendment No. 41:

In pages 212, lines 5 and 6, to delete "2nd anniversary" and substitute "1st anniversary".

I move amendment No. 42:

In pages 212, to delete lines 15 to 22 and substitute the following:

"(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to a proposed maritime usage referred to in that subsection that is the subject of a lease made under section 2 of the Act of 1933 that authorises the lessee to do, for the purposes of such usage, one or more than one of the acts referred to in that section.".

I move amendment No. 43:

In pages 212, to delete lines 31 to 39 and substitute the following:

"76A. Neither section 75 nor section 76 shall apply for a maritime usage in a part of the maritime area consisting of development (including the laying of cables or pipelines or both) authorised by a lease made under section 2 of the Act of 1933 pursuant to an application for such lease made under that Act before the establishment day.".