Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I know that this is an area of great personal interest to him. I join others in complimenting Senator Norris. Today is Bloomsday. One of the lines in Ulyssesreads: "The supreme question about a work of art is out of how deep a life does it spring." The work of art that is the portrait of Senator Norris springs from a very deep life, and this legislation, as a very practical piece of work, springs from a very deep knowledge and understanding of heritage issues and the cultural, architectural, social and environmental importance of our built heritage. The legislation is really important. It is timely. It should and must be strongly reflected in the new building guidelines that have been brought through. In the limited time I have, I will highlight a couple of aspects of the Bill that are important.

We sometimes get the idea that architectural heritage is nice but that we have other priorities against which we need to balance it. I wish to be very clear that a stronger focus on our built and architectural heritage is, in fact, complementary to our other priorities. I am a member of the climate committee, where over recent months we have had a series of hearings on the renovation wave across Europe and different sustainable approaches to building. One thing that comes across again and again is that the most sustainable building is the one that already exists, that is renovated and that maybe sometimes is extended or changed. A new tower may happen to have a renewable energy source built into it. Restoring buildings and bringing them back into use can be incredibly powerful and is one of the most significant ways to address the challenges we face. That has been highlighted at European level. A European Commission has spoken about it.

We need to be extraordinarily careful about demolition. In that context, I welcome the aspect of the Bill - I think it is section 15 - which states that there should not be a short-circuiting on demolition. Not solely for the benefit of heritage but in general, demolition should become the absolute exception rather than the rule, given that heritage experts and environmental experts have told us that it takes up to 60 to 70 years to come back from the massive amount of emissions that come from unnecessary demolition, particularly in these early years of our climate action.

I make these points because they highlight the fact that there is a complementarity. There are all those strong cases that have been there before but there are also new cases and new social, environmental and heritage-related arguments for architectural preservation and the building of skills. The climate committee has discussed that also. When we have referred in our reports to just transition, new skills and climate skills, we have emphasised that it is not just about new technological skills and other new skills. Some of the really important things for climate resilience and restoration are those repair skills, the kinds of heritage skills and the apprenticeships we need in restoring shutters, bringing buildings back into use, managing the built fabric we share across the country and our extraordinary built heritage, and the old practices of salvage. Those practices are crucial and central to the new renovation wave. The climate committee has discussed that. I wanted to say that in order that when the Government goes into these building regulations, these really practical, strong and clear proposals from Senator Norris, they are not left as a wish list or a thing we would like to keep but seen as core to plans that will work.

I will highlight one other aspect of the Bill that is particularly strong and important, namely, the removal of defence in cases of reckless action. We have all heard the stories about the building knocked down or the wall damaged on a bank holiday Sunday to a point at which the building becomes unsavable. There should not be defences of those kinds of actions because we know that they are reckless and that there are intentional actions whereby it is considered better to apologise afterwards but to move on. That is the idea. That is where there should be a real strengthening of powers, including powers of prosecution and the potential involvement of the Criminal Assets Bureau, which I really welcome. If our shared heritage is damaged, we need to make sure that persons do not profit from it and that it becomes a matter in respect of which the State can intervene.

This Bill comes from somebody who knows heritage in all its possibilities and in every obstacle it encounters. That it is why it is a lengthy Bill. It is detailed. It goes to each of the levers and points in the system. I urge the Minister not just to embrace the Bill as a lovely idea but also to let us build this proposal into our new planning framework for Ireland.