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

In the context of his response to amendment No. 8, will the Minister of State indicate whether he is absolutely satisfied that in the broadening of the definition in the Bill from Article 1 of the Valletta Convention, nothing has been lost in the desire to expand and be more inclusive and that there will not be any unintended consequences to which we may have to return at a later stage?

In regard to amendment No. 10, if I heard the Minister of State correctly, I am more than happy to withdraw this if he is saying he is willing to look at the intention of the amendment. With respect to amendment No. 12, this is one of the reasons why it should not just be lawyers and legislative drafters who are responsible for these matters because most students, let alone practising planners or architects, would understand the meaning of the word "context" in the specific discussion we are having. I urge the Minister of State to consider the points I am about to make and undertake to go away and look at this matter. If he gives that undertaking, I will withdraw amendment No. 12.

Moore Street is a good example. A planner, urban planner or architect, will often talk about the context within which buildings are set. That can be the urban grain, it can be the streetscape, it can be things that are not necessarily physically attached to or immediately adjoining an important historic monument but are integral to its place in our history. I cannot think of a better example than the laneways that lead onto the key historic battleground of Moore Street. What Deputy Ó Snodaigh was trying to do in bringing forward this amendment - as we know, he has been involved along with others in the Moore Street battlefield site campaign - was to ensure that on unique sites such as that, the full context within which the monuments as people ordinarily understand them would be located, is not lost, because the urban context, the grain, the streetscape and the lane-scape is a really important part of the site. It may be worthwhile thinking about that in planning and architectural terms, as opposed to purely legal definitional terms. I am not a planner or an architect. In my seven years on this committee, we have probably spent more time talking to planners and architects than we ever thought we would before we got involved in politics. However, settings in attendant ground are different, from an architectural and urban planning point of view, from surrounding contexts. I urge the Minister of State to look again at that and we can return to it on Report Stage or, indeed, when the legislation reaches the end of its journey in the Seanad.