I move amendment No. 54:
In page 13, subsection (1), lines 38 and 39, to delete "in their opinion they can do so without injury to the monument and".
In section 7 we are dealing with the removal of national monuments to museums and other places of protection. I want to make the case to the Minister that it is a good section as it stands. I want to put it to the Minister that there are many situations where, even though it might not be possible to move a monument without injury — in some cases the injury might be minimal — it might be more desirable in many cases to move it than to leave it in its present position.
In my own town of Kells we have the Market Cross which is almost as famous as the Book of Kells. Unfortunately, the Market Cross is in a bad way in many respects. It is in a very exposed situation at a corner where there is a problem with traffic fumes. There is the problem of acid rain for all such monuments. There is also the fact that the cross, like so many others of its kind, has cracks and crevices which during frosty weather expose it to damage. From year to year the problem is worsening. People sitting on the monument and examining the base abuse the monument.
The decision was made by the urban council to move this cross specifically for the reason that it was in imminent danger. The people of the town objected. One of the points that came up was the possibility of damage to the cross because it has cracks. Unfortunately, left in its present position the cross will deteriorate from year to year. I hope the Minister will accept that even though there might be some possibility of damage in moving the cross it would be far better to take that risk, especially with the sophisticated means we have at present for moving that type of monument. I hope the Minister will accept that the situation we have in my town applies in many cases. It seems to me that when this Bill becomes law that restriction will make the moving of this cross impossible. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. This would give the commissioners discretion in the matter and it would be far better to give them that discretion than to tie their hands in this way with legislation.