Mr. Ian Doyle:

The question was about religious sites being exempted, but just before we get on to that, we love to hear about active community groups like the one Senator Seery Kearney talks about. We have a very good grant-giving relationship with them. When we hear about groups like that, which are campaigning and working for heritage, we think it is brilliant. That is fantastic.

In terms of religious sites, under the existing legislation, religious sites that are in use are generally not seen as national monuments.

The State stayed clear of religious sites in use during the formulation of all the national monuments legislation. What has changed since is that the Planning and Development Act 2000 set up the system of protected structures so the vast majority of the churches and religious buildings, and their curtilage, including burial sites, would be considered to be protected structures. That is covered under the record-of-protected-structures facility through county development plans. That has its own system of controls, grants and supports.

Whether the extension of coverage through this proposed Bill would help is a matter for discussion because one would effectively be increasing the protection and what some would see as red tape with respect to a monument that is already protected. I would argue that the Planning and Development Act already protects that form of heritage through the protected-structures system.