Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I urge the Minister of State to push back on this use of the term "uncertainty". With everything we do in legislation, we do not know how exactly it will be used. Thus, when the Minister of State speaks of uncertainty with respect to the cultural heritage piece, for example, I hear it as him saying we do not know how it will be used. However, that is not a bad thing. If we were doing certainty, we would not have a provision that allows for designations of anything. We would just say here are our five historic things and we will stick with those. It is simply allowing for it to be used in a proper way. These are matters of discretion and of choice. There is a whole process set out in the Bill for how we are going to be thinking about these things and weighing them up.

What I am hearing from the Minister of State on the cultural aspect is the Department does not have things in mind for that, and that is a failure of imagination on its part. I worry our cultural heritage has been and is being neglected in a case where the focus is often on cultural entertainment. Our cultural heritage has made a significant difference in really practical ways, such as with respect to climate change. Some of the later amendments deal with that. There are other aspects of our cultural heritage such as hand skills. These skills or ways of engaging with buildings have proven to be incredibly important. It is not just thatched houses that are our heritage but the art of thatching. The linguistic aspect is part of our cultural heritage. It is a subsection. I have given examples around the Doegen recordings held by the Royal Irish Academy. They are sound recordings of local Irish dialects that should be protected and need to be acknowledged as heritage, but even if we want to go into the idea of spaces, we can look to physical pieces with things like Ogham. We can look to where language is recorded and how there is less recording of certain languages. We can also go to things like Cant, a Traveller language that has got little recognition in our State and which has a role in certain places. We can look to physical spaces that respond differently to voice, sound and accent. It is a whole rich area. Neither I nor the Minister of State need to be the experts on it; it is about giving space to that. I can see there is a reluctance in some of these areas around the intangible, but the cultural piece is crucial. Without the cultural piece this falls short of the Valletta Convention.

The Minister of State mentioned the archaeological aspect, but the Bill is not solely about archaeological heritage. The preamble refers to repealing "the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 2014 and ... [replacing] those Acts with provisions for the protection of historic heritage, provisions for the protection of archaeological heritage". This is the Bill that is providing for the protection of historic heritage. There are two separate impetuses, so that the historic heritage mandate is there and is not a subsection of archaeology. That is not how it is set out in the purpose of the Bill, nor the mandate of the Bill, yet in section 12(2) the historic aspect vanishes. Is the Minister of State going to insert a whole other chapter on the historic aspect? Where is it and why is it in the preamble if it is not going to be reflected equally with the archaeological aspect? The Bill currently does not reflect its own preamble. Even if the Minister of State does not want to accept my amendments, putting "historic" alongside "archaeological" in section 12(1)(b) would seem to be basic to ensure the Bill has the stretch and ambition it purports to have. I do not accept this is envisioned as being solely archaeological and I do not think the Minister of State or anyone from the past 40 years envisions this area as solely archaeological. Once we start doing that, we go straight back into whether something fits on the files, how grand is it, how pointy an arch it is, and so on. We are then having a different discussion that is no longer a discussion about heritage or our collective memory.

I do not accept there is an issue with mentioning culture. It is a well-established concept that is really important. The exception culturelleis one of the fundamental principles in European law. I reject the suggestion mentioning culture makes things a little too ambiguous and uncertain. The Minister of State should do likewise and the Bill should reflect that. I urge him to ensure the Bill is consistent with both historic and archaeological heritage. As a basic point, I urge him to put culture back in. While some of the intangible aspects I am speaking of are important, I acknowledge they may be difficult to sell within the Department. However, we need to move towards including them. When we look at equality of heritage, things like the intangible become important. Many people carry their life stories on their bodies, in their bodies and in their collective ways of being in the world, whereas other people can build fabulous monuments to themselves. The heritage of those who have lived in particular ways is also really important and should not be lost. That is why intangible heritage is worth fighting for and pushing for.It sounds like the Minister of State is not accepting the amendments for now. I will press them. I really urge the Minister of State to go back and push to make this Bill better as it goes to the Dáil and to take on board the points I am making.