Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Section 75 is around maintenance, presentation and the active duties of relevant authorities in maintaining the various archaeological criteria and all of that, but the active duties they may have in that regard are slightly different from the protective pieces I am trying to insert. It is quite a reasonable bar. The bar outlined in my amendments includes the phrase "likely to lead". I am not looking for this provision in any case where there is a tiny responsibility that it might be but, rather, "is likely to lead" to damage or destruction. That is a reasonable bar. I will press these amendments because I believe we need to copper-fasten this.

The Minister of State mentioned the granting of a licence insofar as is compatible with subsections 75(1) and 75(2). Subsection 75(1) concerns that active duty of maintenance, which is fine. Subsection 75(2) is actually a dilution of subsection 75(1), as it states that subsection 75(1) "shall not prevent or restrict the doing of any act which results in the loss ... of the interest referred to" where it is justified on research or public interest grounds. These subsections are not protective. Subsection 75(1) relates to the general duty of maintenance while subsection 75(2) references maintenance but also that there are exceptions to maintenance on public interest or research grounds. Those subsections are not doing what is proposed in my amendments. They are not ensuring. In fact, if there is anything, public interest is very widely interpretable. It may be public interest to have commercial activity take place on a site. That is arguable. Subsection 75(2) could be used as justification for the issuing of a licence, for example. That is why I am trying to ensure there is a clear baseline, which is protective. Maintenance and exceptions to maintenance are not the same as ensuring.

I cannot see why we would not put something around physical integrity in the Bill. It seems to me that is a minimum point. Much as I value the cultural and historical pieces, which are things we can try to reclaim, the physical integrity piece seems to be a clear bottom line. Subsection 75(2) gives potentially too wide a scope. I understand there will have to be exceptions to the maintenance rules for research and other reasons. However, even if the Minister of State did not want to accept my amendment in full, which references damage and destruction, destruction should be a fairly basic line we should be able to ensure against.Something the Minister of State could look to in the Dáil is ensuring that we do not have a situation where there is a licence that could lead to destruction. I understand with the research component of section 75(2), "damage" may be interpretable a bit more widely. However, I am not satisfied that there is adequate protection.