Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 20 inserts a new subsection (4) into section 31, which provides that said section shall not apply to a class of relevant works which would restrict public access to a national monument for a period of more than two years. This is important because our heritage belongs to all of us collectively, as we discussed previously. The relationship with heritage is something we should all be able to enjoy. This is recognising that there may be classes of relevant works that might need to take place for extended periods. The Minister of State mentioned refurbishment and building works and so forth. We do not want a situation whereby a class of relevant works effectively acts as a long-term obstacle to access. If this is occurs, it diminishes the public relationship with the protected structure or monument and the cultural amenity, community and enjoyment of it, which, as the Minister of State said himself, he values so highly. I tried to be reasonable in that amendment by saying I recognise there may be situations where there are relevant works, which will restrict public access to a national monument for certain periods. However, there needs to be a limit set on that period, and I have suggested the period of 24 months, which I believe to be reasonable.

Amendment 21 is an alternative to amendment 20, which inserts a new subsection (4) into section 31. It provides that where a class of relevant works has restricted public access to a national monument for a period of more than two years, the Minister shall review his or her prescription of such a class of relevant works and their impact on public access to national monuments. Even if the Minister is not in a position to put in place a prohibition, this is an automatic review mechanism. It will ensure that we do not have a particular kind of relevant works prescribed. It will prevent a particular activity being prescribed around a protected monument or site becoming wide open and allowing 15 or 20 years pass in which there is no public access to the national monument without the decision being reviewed. I have tried to be really reasonable in these amendments. Looking at the two of them alongside each other and especially amendment No. 21, I am acknowledging that in some cases, the works may take longer than two years. They may take four years or six years or in the case of the national children's hospital, however many years that takes. However, there still should be a review. It should not be simply the fact that because one Minister at one point said a particular activity was okay that we are signed up forever to that kind of activity being okay around that monument. In the balancing and ensuring that our heritage is paramount, it is important that the balancing is checked on again. If we are looking at a situation with a ten-year loss of access, then suddenly the argument that made sense for a brief period no longer stands up regarding the balance of considerations between heritage and another activity. This is a situation where it is not a matter of reviewing how the clauses are used, which I have mentioned before, but where the review mechanism should be built into the legislation. In this case, I suggest that a Minister would have to choose to extend the designation but at a minimum, I think a Minister should be able to revoke a designation of a class of relevant works.