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

I thank the Minister of State and the team for the responses, which are very helpful. My argument is not that we should use the legislation to give a greater level of protection to things that either are or should be on the list of protected structures. It is more to make the point that there are a very small number of very important pieces of 20th century built environment that deserve elevation to the status of a national monument as I understand it in the legislation. My concern from reading the heads is that they are not as explicit as they could be. I urge the team and the Minister of State to consider this issue and the word style of the definitions, particularly "historic interest". Architecture is not just about what happened in the building, although this is crucial and the Minister of State has covered it very clearly in terms of relations with historic events or historic people. There is also the issue of style. It should be more explicit. The reason I mentioned Collinstown and Busáras is because they very clearly have a status way above their protected structure. They are both protected structures and rightly so. I urge the Minister of State and the Department to think about this.

I hear what has been said with regard to the definition of "relevant thing" including artificial structure. I get that. I am not so sure it is as explicit legislatively in terms of built heritage and architectural heritage as would be useful to a Minister when she or he is eventually making a decision. All I am asking is that this is considered. Perhaps something needs to be much more explicit, for example, a definition of "monument". The one thing that is not in the Bill is cross-referencing the definition of a national monument with the definitions of "historic heritage", "historic interest" and "relevant thing". I ask the Minister of State and the Department to consider these points.