Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We will deal with this in more detail in the following sections. As I see it, section 27(1) is the protective piece. I understand the concerns regarding some of the deletions. However, section 27(2)(b) was the particular concern I was addressing. Perhaps my amendment is too broad, although I note it does not actually remove all of section 27(2). I misspoke when I said the amendment would delete all of section 27(2) because it proposes only to remove section 27(2)(b), which basically provides that it would not be a contravention of section 27(1) in these various circumstances.

I am trying to keep some of that protective architecture the Minister of State outlined while trying to remove some of the exemptions. It seems that simply giving notice to the Minister of a relevant number of days around the carrying out of the works is one of the things that will allow evasion of the requirements of section 27(1). I apologise as this is a little convoluted. I have phrased this point clearer in amendment No. 15. Basically, I am a little concerned about a scenario whereby there would be a protective architecture, but persons who want to carry out works would write to the Minister and the Minister would say that is okay. This may become a get-out mechanism in what is envisaged to be proper, protective legislation. I am a little worried that a notice would issue to the Minister who would effectively decide that the relevant work should not be subject to conditions. I am worried that will become an overused opt-out clause or byway.

I know this cannot apply with respect to European legislation in cases where there are environmental impact assessments, etc. However, the Bill does not solely deal with environmental heritage. It deals with the wider spectrum of heritage, some of which will not be protected in the same way by European legislation. I am a little concerned about that this mechanism will become automated or will be overused. It comes back to a point on which the Minister of State responded favourably when he agreed to insert a review clause in relation to how the de-designation or de-registration mechanisms were being used. I am concerned about how this mechanism may be used or overused. If this direct permission mechanism is not removed from the Bill, it will need to have some review built in to ensure it is not overused.