Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the other Senators for their contributions, including Senator Cassells. The principle of access is an important one and the Minister of State has acknowledged community value in one other part of the Bill but this is important as well. The reference to "class of relevant works" is not simply around classes of relevant works and we have the exemptions. We have discussed this previously and "the classes of relevant works" can be quite wide, if not necessarily works that are related to the integrity of the site, the improvement of the monument or supporting the monument. It can be a completely different category of relevant works which is simply there because it used to happen previously. It could be a long-term project of building a completely different public development that happens nearby, so it may not be Tara but it might be the wall next to Tara. There are things like that and it may be that the wall is the thing that is blocking access to Tara. It is not necessarily about enhancing, as was mentioned, or painstakingly and carefully enhancing, the monument.

In other cases there are categories of relevant works, which was mentioned, which are much wider than that and that is why there needs to be some time limit put on those. The Minister of State might not like the two-year limit. The two-year limit with the potential for renewal was reasonable so that a new decision and justification for renewal would be needed, as per amendment No. 21, so I will press that amendment because it is relevant. We must bear in mind again that in some cases there may be long-delayed activities around the improvement of sites and in other cases there might be other classes of activity that have fallen under this category. As I have said, "relevant works" is not solely relevant works in the service of heritage; there are a lot of other relevant works that come under the exemptions as well. There needs to be some limit and it is not sufficient for the Minister of State to simply say he does not envisage the circumstances that would lead to it being required.

We have examples of where these things have happened and of where something gets started and then put on the long finger for years. We only need to look at the bandstand in St. Stephen's Green. How desperately pathetic is it to have a bandstand in St. Stephen's Green with safety barriers around it, in the centre of our city, that is closed for use and not available to the public? People used to do dancing there on Saturdays but now there is just this closed off bandstand sitting there and looking derelict with protective barriers around it for who knows how long. That is one small example. It is one I pass and it makes me sad every time I pass it because it used to be a location where, during Covid for example when people had nowhere to go, people could do little performances and where things would happen and people would bring it to life. Now it is simply closed off and on the long list, awaiting something to maybe happen to it eventually, some time. What is more likely to happen is that it will become derelict out of misuse and maybe get replaced. As that is what happens, we have to look to that danger.

If the Minister of State cannot accept the proposals I am making, I urge him to come back and look at what the time limit and review mechanism on relevant works is. As Senator Cassells said, sometimes having some form of clock ticking can at least create an urgency on those relevant works and can create some pressure to ensure they do not become a de facto mechanism of closing off public access.