Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank everybody, including the Minister of State, for the presentations.

Mr. Carpenter, I want to go back to Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question about definitions. Head 2 does not contain a definition of a monument although it defines historic heritage and historic interest. The definition of "relevant thing" contains a reference to an artificial structure but there is no definition of a monument. The reason that I think this is a problem with the Bill becomes particularly clear or acute when one talks about architectural or built heritage. Most people think of a monument as an obelisk, a cross, a symbol of some kind and not a building that is occupied by people. Built heritage is the buildings, particularly the historically important buildings in cities, town and rural landscape. If one looks at the definitions there is talk of architectural heritage but from what period? Could a building that was built 20, 50 or 90 years ago be considered architectural heritage? Of course it could because heritage simply means, by definition, the things or cultural inheritance from the people before us so our parents, grandparents, etc. but that is not clear from the Bill. I appreciate that Mr. Carpenter does not want to keep having to revise to the legislation but there is a risk by making the definitions too broad that things will fall out and I will give a couple of examples.

The definition for "historic interest" refers, in general, to historic events, associations with people, etc. The definition includes "representative of ... periods". The definition would be much better if it included the words "representative of historic styles". I say that because, particularly with architecture from the 17th century, 18th century, 19th century and 20th century, such styles may not be representative of a period but still really important to be recognised. I make these points because, as the Minister knows, I have a particular interest in 20th century architecture. For example, I believe that Collinstown Airport should be an historic monument under the terms of this legislation but it is not clear that it would fit into any of this. Collinstown Airport is a hugely important 20th century piece of architecture and Busáras is another example. It is not that one would declare as a national monument every bit of 20th century architecture but those that are particularly important. I worry that they jar a little bit with the definitions in the Bill. This matter is important because a very large volume of our 20th century built heritage has been knocked down. For example, Robin Walker's Bord Fáilte building and Fitzwilton House. Some of these buildings people think of as the ugliest buildings that have ever been seen such as River House, which is a former motor tax office located at the back of the Four Courts. Such buildings are an integral part of the built heritage of this country and I worry that the definitions are not broad enough.

Should we not think about making this a Bill not just about national monuments and archaeological heritage but also built heritage? Should we be much more explicit that built heritage and architecture is a central part of this legislation? Should we not be a little bit more explicit in our definitions to ensure that the general perception of heritage, as being an older thing, does not, by default, become the interpretation of the Bill? To be slightly flippant, everybody should know or Dubs should know the "Why go Bald?" neon sign located at the bottom of Georges Street and Dame Street. The sign got heritage funding, and rightly so, because it a really important piece of this city's built heritage, albeit it an object rather than a building. I appeal to the delegation to respond to my concern that the built heritage, particularly the modern built heritage is not explicitly protected in the Bill and could fall foul of that. I will explain my reason for saying that. With respect to 17th century, 18th century and 19th century built heritage, that has often fallen into dereliction, then there is a big fuss and then we restore it just like Customs House, the GPO and other sites. Let us make sure that we do not make the same mistake with 20th century built heritage and instead preserve and maintain the really important examples so that future generations do not have to dol with Busáras or Collinstown what our generation or that of our parents have had to with the Customs House or other such important buildings.