Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 15 seeks to delete section 29(3)(b), which provides that the Minister may include in his or her prescription of a class of relevant works, works which comprise "an established recurrent activity before the monuments concerned became monuments to which general protection applies." This is a regressive and wide provision which gives carte blanche power to a Minister to classify a category of works as relevant works if they were previously recurrent. Basically, anything that happened previously can continue to happen. We need to change how we do things all the time, especially in the area of heritage. Things are constantly changing and need to be evolved. Having business as usual as a provision to justify business as usual is almost a tautological circle. I do not agree that simply because these were previously recurrent activities, that should necessarily be a sufficient basis to designate them as relevant works which can take place regardless of the existence of a national monument.

This section does not specify or place any conditionality on what the works are. It simply states that they have to had taken place prior to the application of protection. Surely, the entire point of creating protections is to protect monuments. If recurrent works or kinds of activities create damaging, corrosive, erosive or undermining effects on a national monument that should be protected, why would we allow them to continue, simply because they happened before? It is not sufficient to say something happened previously. This is too wide a space. It is not a matter that heritage should have to creep in and get designated but absolutely nothing else will change. That seems to be the tone. There has been too much of that dynamic in the area of natural heritage. There are also other areas of heritage that are meant to exist on the fringes of business as usual.It should not be the case that activity that we had been ignoring in the normal course of business should not have to change or in any way accommodate this heritage. Protecting heritage means giving space and consideration to heritage. I am concerned about how widely and loosely framed this "recurrent activity" is. With regard to amendment No. 15, it is the old case of "stop digging". If you have been digging a long time and in the wrong direction, the simple fact you have been digging should not justify continuing to dig.

Amendment No. 16 follows the point made on amendment No. 15. It seeks to insert a new subsection in section 29 to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3)(b)(ii), the Minister may not prescribe an established recurrent activity as a class of relevant works if such activity is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical integrity of a monument to which general protection applies. Amendment No. 15 simply removes this version of recurrent activity. Amendment No. 16 states that if the Minister of State wants to keep it, let us at least put in a caveat that it should not include recurrent activities that will damage or destroy the monument.

Amendment No. 17 is an alternative version of amendment No. 16 that includes the phrase "cultural integrity" as well as "physical integrity". An example is an activity taking place, even if it is a recurrent activity, that prevents access to a national monument. We know such things happen. We know there are sites where a car park has been built around a national monument or there has been development or commercial activities taking place in part of it. We have had this discussion in a different context. It is important to ensure that people are able to culturally engage with our national monuments and that, for example, the monuments do not simply exist hemmed in on all sides by a particular commercial activity. There should be routes of access. This is an example of ensuring we have cultural activity. This goes back to the provision in the Valletta Convention on context. We must ensure we have routes of approach to, for example, a sacred landscape or an historic landscape. The amendment is proposed to ensure there is no damage from recurrent activity.

Amendment No. 18 is similar to amendments Nos. 16 and 17. It also deals with section 31(2)(b), which provides the Minister may specify a class of relevant works as exempt from the protections of section 30 where they were recurring before the thing was prescribed as a monument. This would allow the Minister of State to say that certain types of recurrent works will not be allowed to be designated as relevant works. If there are particular types of activity that we know to be very damaging, they would not become relevant works.

Amendment No. 19 is another alternative to amendment No. 18. It refers to physical integrity and cultural integrity. It has the same principles that I have indicated.