Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State makes the case that there may be certain situations where an activity was happening but the point is that there should not be caveats. This is not being weighed up. It is not necessarily that every time there is a recurrent activity, it should automatically be prohibited. This is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that relevant works should meet the standard in the Bill. I will probably press amendment No. 16 in particular. We should not establish a recurrent activity as a class of relevant works where it will lead to the destruction or damage to the integrity of a monument. Frankly, the cases of farming around a monument or adjoining graves that may be upgraded would meet the classes of relevant works that are discussed elsewhere. They would fall under relevant works anyway rather than simply being recurrent activities. They probably would not lean on the "recurrent activity" definition.

I am concerned that if we recognise something and designate it as a protected structure and then let something happen that we know will just destroy it, we will end up with a register of things that were briefly protected but were not actually protected. We are supposed to be dealing with the idea of protected monuments. The fact is that an activity that was taking place previously may have to be slightly adjusted. Farming may have to adjust if a significant site is discovered. It does not mean that farming cannot happen. It means it may have to happen in a way that is less damaging to that site. That is okay; things have to adapt all the time. We are adapting to the climate imperative and health and safety imperatives. Practices change all the time because of various factors.

There may be a perverse incentive whereby if it becomes easier to protect something because it is a recurrent activity, we may end up set in old ways of doing things because they were the previous and recurrent activity, rather than having new approaches that might be better adapted to co-exist with the protected monument but which would not fall into the "relevant works" definition in the same way.

I will probably have to press amendment No. 16 strongly. Works should not be classed as relevant where they are likely to lead to the destruction of or damage to the integrity of a monument. I will also probably push the amendment on physical integrity. I would like there to be a reference in the Bill to physical or cultural integrity. Perhaps a way to consider this in the Dáil is to see how the Minister of State can add better caveats to the idea of the category of relevant works and the idea of recurrent activity. It certainly should not be a situation where the concept of recurrent activity precludes the adaptation of a previously common activity so as to be more sensitive.