Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Apr 2023

Vol. 1037 No. 1

Historic and Archaeological Heritage Bill 2023 [Seanad]: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Is mór an onóir domsa Bille na hOidhreachta Stairiúla agus Seandálaíochta, 2023 a cur faoi bhráid na Dála. I am pleased and honoured to bring the Historical and Archaeological Heritage Bill 2023 before the House today. This important Bill provides a new framework to modernise and bolster the law that provides for the protection of our archaeological and related heritage. I look forward to the deliberations of the House over the coming days. l am certain everybody present here today is aware that Irish heritage is an important cornerstone of our society. It tells us the story of the development of our people, inspires public understanding, and teaches us an appreciation of the past. To reiterate what I expressed during the Bill's passage through Seanad Éireann, at an international level Irish heritage provides our people with a special uniqueness that many states admire. At a national level our heritage unites us. It nurtures a sense of Irish kinship and is often a source of great pride. At a local level, which many consider to be the most important level of all, heritage has the power to create and sustain entire communities. These are some of the reasons the law that protects our historic heritage is of such great importance.

The need for legislative reform in this area has long been acknowledged and the origin of the Bill can be traced back to an expert advisory group, which in 2009 recommended to the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that the National Monuments Acts be replaced with revised legislation. While this can be considered the origin of the Bill, the need for complete revision of the legislation has long been recognised and previous work on legislative proposals was undertaken during the early 2000s. Comprehensive work, research and consultation has taken place over the years since the expert advisory group's recommendation, and following a very useful pre-legislative scrutiny process, Government approval of the Bill was received at the start of this year.

The Bill's passage through Seanad Éireann saw some very valuable engagement, and the culmination of the debates in that House is more than ten proposed amendments that I hope to bring forward on Committee Stage, pending discussion and drafting work with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. At its most fundamental level, the purpose of the Bill is to help protect and conserve our historic and archaeological heritage. In one way or another, the different principles underpinning the Bill all lead back to this critical purpose. Various elements of the Bill will also help realise some of the actions set out in Heritage Ireland 2030, our national heritage plan.

Part 1 states that our historic heritage is a non-renewable resource of great cultural and scientific importance. The protection of historic heritage in its original location or in situ should always be the first choice considered, and the Bill ensures there is a presumption in favour of this.

Monuments and archaeological sites are among the most significant examples of our historic heritage and Part 2 will revise and modernise the existing law, that being the National Monuments Acts, which have provided the legal basis for the protection of monuments for nearly 100 years. Part 2 provides for the protection of newly discovered monuments of classes to be set out in regulations, a key innovation when compared with the existing law. As currently drafted, the Bill provides for regulations that will set out classes of different structures and sites that are of archaeological interest, and these will become known as prescribed monuments. This approach will ensure newly discovered archaeological sites are afforded immediate legal protection in a manner similar to that already provided for archaeological objects or historic wrecks, which are automatically protected without a need for formal designation or registration. Following the debate in the Seanad, it is my intention to bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage in this House to ensure the regulations need not be restricted solely to sites of archaeological interest while continuing to ensure the provision is workable and reasonable by requiring that only categories appropriate to be prescribed monuments are included.

For the first time, a statutory reporting scheme for finds of monuments is to be introduced. In general, where a person finds, or believes he or she has found, a prescribed monument, he or she will have to make a report to the Minister or a member of An Garda Síochána. A 72-hour time limit is provided for making these reports. However alternative time periods may be set out in regulations where appropriate.

A new register of monuments will be established to replace several designation and registration systems in existence under the existing law. In accordance with criteria to be set out in the Bill, the Minister will be empowered to enter sites into the register of monuments if they are of heritage interest or if they belong to a class of prescribed monument. Sites so entered will then become known as registered monuments. The Bill will provide for the integration of historic wrecks into the systems for the protection of monuments, so ending the division between the two systems under existing law. There will be no loss of legal protection relative to the existing system.

Comprehensive administrative procedures are set out in Part 2, and these must be followed when making, amending or deleting entries in the register. A statutory consultation process must take place by way of general notice in national newspapers or by direct contact with landowners, as appropriate. A written notice of the changes made to the register and the reasons for those changes must issue in a similar manner.

A default level of protection will be applied to prescribed and registered monuments, and this is a crucial point. It will mean that works to or at a monument cannot be carried out lawfully other than under and in accordance with a licence or unless a valid notice of the works is submitted and a three-month notice period has elapsed. Where a notice for proposed works is received, the Minister will have powers to apply a higher level of legal protection to a registered monument, causing the notice procedure to be no longer available. In such cases, works can only be carried out lawfully under a licence. In addition, even where the Minister does not decide to apply the higher level of protection, he or she may impose certain conditions regarding the carrying out of the notified works.

Registered monuments in the ownership of the Minister or a local authority will be automatically subject to the higher level of legal protection, and where such monuments have been acquired under the enacted Bill, they will be known as national monuments. There will be a duty to maintain and facilitate access to national monuments and the Office of Public Works, OPW, will discharge the day-to-day aspects of this duty on behalf of the Minister.

The Bill also provides for by-law making powers that can be applied to national monuments, as defined. A new fixed-payment notice system can be used to enforce by-laws, with corresponding powers to issue on-the-spot fines. This will provide the OPW and local authorities with effective powers that can be readily enforced at national monuments. I stress that this by-law making power will apply only to national monuments, as defined, that is to say, registered monuments owned by the Minister or a local authority under the enacted Bill. It will not be available for other monuments, such as those on privately owned lands.

All these measures combine to make Part 2 a central pillar of the Bill, which link back to its overall purpose, namely, the protection and conservation of our historic heritage. The House might also note that the provisions in the Bill relating to monuments are to complement and do not in any way replace the law relating to protected structures of architectural interest found under the Planning and Development Act or the wider role of heritage protection in the planning system.

The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, or Valletta convention, is often considered the foundation text for archaeological heritage management in Europe. While the primary purposes of the convention have been built into the Bill, following on from discussions in the Seanad, the desire for additional references to the convention was evident and, as mentioned, I intend to bring forward the necessary amendments on Committee Stage to provide for this.

Part 3 relates to the 1972 UNESCO convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. This convention provides for the globally recognised system of world heritage properties, of which Ireland currently has two: Brú na Bóinne and Sceilg Mhichíl. For the first time, the term "world heritage property" will be introduced into Irish law, thus strengthening the legal standing of the use of the term in development plans adopted by planning authorities. The current policy of ensuring nominations of world heritage properties takes place based upon a partnership approach with local communities is also given statutory effect under Part 3.

Part 4 relates to archaeological objects and, with limited exceptions, references to "the Minister" under Part 4 will mean the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport, Gaeltacht and Media and matters relating to the operation of Part 4 will fall under the remit of her Department. Part 4 provides for State ownership of archaeological objects with no known owner and removes some ambiguity found in the existing law by making it clear that owners of land on which archaeological objects are found are not counted as "known owners". Where the owner of an archaeological object is known, the State will be given the power to acquire the object on payment of appropriate compensation. As is currently the case under existing law, objects falling within the definition of an "archaeological object" will be legally protected through a licensing requirement for their alteration, and all finds of archaeological objects must be reported to the National Museum of Ireland.

Part 4 also provides the important provisions to allow for the ratification of two significant international treaties, the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects.

The measures relating to the 1970 UNESCO convention include making it an offence to import stolen cultural property into the State from another state that is party to the convention and a requirement to certify cultural property exported from the State. This certification system will be synchronised with the existing system for such material arising under EU law. The measures relating to the 1995 UNIDROIT convention help to ensure claims brought before the Irish courts for the return of cultural objects will be decided by the courts in accordance with the relevant rules for determining such claims as set out under the convention.

The ratification of the two conventions will enable Ireland to play its part in the international effort to combat the illicit trade in and looting of antiquities and cultural objects. Both UNESCO and the UN as a whole have been urging states to co-operate in addressing these important issues, and the enactment of the Bill will mark an important milestone in Ireland's efforts to contribute in this area.

It is vital we ensure our underwater cultural heritage continues to be protected. A key aspect of the new schemes for the protection of monuments is the incorporation of historic wrecks into inventories of historic heritage, classes of prescribed monuments and the register of monuments. In Part 5, specific provision is made for issues relating to the protection of historic wrecks and archaeological objects located under water that are not covered in the general provisions relating to monuments and archaeological objects, an example being the control of diving in relevant locations. With regard to the so-called contiguous zone, which is an area that extends 12 additional nautical miles beyond our territorial seas, provision is included to apply Irish jurisdiction generally to underwater cultural heritage located in this area. This will only be insofar as permitted under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which will not allow for state ownership of archaeological objects found within the contiguous zone.

Part 5 will enable the State to ratify another significant international treaty, the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, should the Government decide to do so. This important convention has become the international legal framework of reference for the protection of underwater cultural heritage. It contains obligations on the prevention of commercial exploitation, looting and trafficking, as well as promoting international co-operation and assistance.

Part 6 relates to other activities that will be subject to a licensing requirement, particularly archaeological excavation and the use of metal detectors to search for archaeological objects. Activities that could be considered ambiguous under existing law, such as the monitoring by archaeologists of development works and the use of geophysical equipment for archaeological purposes, will now be stated clearly to be within the legislative framework. As many professional practitioners currently seek relevant consents or licences under the existing legislation, the proposed provisions do not represent a major expansion of the schemes that are currently in place.

Additional provisions under Part 6 will help ensure a person cannot sell or supply a detection device unless a prescribed warning is clearly legible on the packaging or container, and a person will not be permitted to advertise the sale or use of a detection device to search for archaeological objects unless the advertisement is accompanied by the prescribed warning. In general under the existing National Monuments Acts, each provision that creates a regulatory requirement has its own associated consent or licensing system, and these often differ from each other with regard to application procedures, criteria for consideration or powers to impose conditions.

Part 7 will introduce an integrated licensing system whereby a single licence can authorise a range of activities to be regulated under the Bill. Apart from being a major step in terms of regulatory reform and modernisation, this will facilitate the reintegration of the special regulatory regime for archaeological work associated with major road projects, introduced by the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004, by making it possible for all archaeological work on such a project to be dealt with under a single licence. The ending of this system of ministerial directions will result in a common system of regulation of archaeological work across all sectors, public and private, and further reduce existing regulatory complexity.

For the first time, a statutory appeals process will be established, with appeals officers appointed to review licensing decisions. This will help to ensure administrative fairness and transparency in the regulatory process. The formation and maintenance of inventories of heritage sites underpin the effective management of those sites, providing the data used to decide which sites are protected and for advising other bodies on the possible impacts of development on our heritage.

Part 8 provides for three statutory inventories – archaeological sites, architectural heritage and historic wrecks – and provides discretionary powers to create inventories of other categories of sites, including world heritage property or property that may have the potential to become world heritage property. Under Part 8, the ongoing important work of the Archaeological Survey of Ireland will thus be given, for the first time, a clear statutory basis. Provision is also made so that information gathered in each of the inventories will be made available to members of the public. Measures will be introduced so that records compiled in the course of licensed activities, for example, archives of archaeological excavations, are legally protected in the event of the dissolution of companies holding such records or the death of a licence holder. There is a gap in existing law in that regard which has, in particular, caused difficulties where archaeological consultancy firms have fallen into difficulties.

Under Part 8, the Minister and other relevant bodies will have powers to promote and publish research relating to historic heritage, as well as to promote knowledge and awareness of monuments and archaeological heritage. Provision is also made so the Minister or the National Museum can provide assistance to persons or bodies involved in the protection of any element of historic heritage. Powers exist under the Planning and Development Act 2000 to issue guidelines on architectural heritage in the planning process. However, these powers do not provide for guidance on archaeological heritage or the elements of historic heritage unrelated to architectural heritage.

Under Part 9, provision is made for the Minister, in consultation with relevant authorities, to issue guidelines for local authorities on how to deal with historic heritage in the exercise of their functions. Local authorities will be obliged to have regard to such guidance. The Minister will also be permitted to issue guidelines on all aspects of historic heritage in the preparation or carrying out of an environmental impact assessment. The intention is that Part 9 will provide a clear statutory basis for the more general work of my Department. The Minister, in conjunction with the Heritage Council, will be provided with a statutory function relating to the co-ordination and development of public policy on historic heritage. This will be in addition to functions relating to the promotion of best practice in relevant disciplines and professions and the promotion of protection of historic heritage by public authorities. Public authorities and local authorities will be placed under a general obligation to have regard to historic heritage in the exercise of their functions.

Turning to Part 10, the modernisation and revision of the existing law create an opportunity to apply a standardised approach across the range of offences and penalties applicable on conviction for the various offences created under the Bill. Care has been taken to ensure the penalties specified are reasonable, proportionate and in line with other legislation. Severe penalties will continue to be available for the most serious offences.

Where appropriate and to ensure fairness, defences to certain offences have been introduced. For example, on the offence of failing to report a find of a prescribed monument, a person charged will be able to argue a defence that a reasonable person would not have recognised it. I stress that this defence will not be available where the prescribed monument in question has been entered in the register of monuments.

A major innovation in Part 10 will be the creation of a system of civil enforcement that can be used as an alternative to or to supplement criminal proceedings under the Bill. Under this system, breaches of the Bill may be rectified by way of so-called enforcement notices that will be enforceable by and appealable to the courts. No equivalent system exists under the current law, so for the first time there will be an enforceable alternative to criminal proceedings for matters such as damage to monuments or non-compliance with licence conditions. This will greatly strengthen in real terms the scope for ensuring compliance with the legislation.

Other matters covered in Part 10 include the creation of offences relating to the obstruction of those charged with implementing the enacted Bill, offences by bodies corporate, vicarious liability for offences by employees, arrest, search and seizure powers, and the recovery of costs of prosecutions and applications for injunctions. Taken together and by comparison with the existing law, the provisions of Part 10 seek to transform radically the scope for the successful implementation and enforcement of the enacted Bill.

Parts 11 and 12 contain a range of miscellaneous technical provisions and consequential amendments to other existing Acts. Matters such as data sharing and powers of the Minister to specify forms of documents and how notices are given are covered here. Our heritage is a fundamental piece of our society and our identity. We are fortunate to have a rich and valued historic heritage in this country, and this legislation will help to ensure its protection for generations to come.

I would like to mention two matters of interest to the House. First, following approval by the Government last week, I am signalling my intent to introduce local government related legislative amendments for inclusion in the Bill on Committee Stage. Second, I am aware that many Deputies have a keen interest in the development of the 1916 national commemorative centre at Nos. 14–17 Moore Street, and I have stated previously that work was proceeding to advance the nomination of a professional design team for the crucial first conservation phase of work. Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street form a national monument. I reiterate the commitment that the Government has made to create a 1916 commemorative centre in these historic houses.

Given the complexities of the various procurement and legal issues surrounding the appointments of the companies involved, this process has taken longer than anticipated. I am now happy to confirm that matters have progressed well in recent weeks and I have good news to report to the House today. There has been a significant amount of contact between the OPW and the various parties in recent weeks to address relevant contractual matters and I understand these are close to being concluded satisfactorily. Once this happens, the formal appointment of the relevant professional parties can be made. This will include conservation architects, mechanical and electrical services engineers, structural and civil engineers, quantity surveyors, archaeological consultants and fire safety engineers.

I look forward to hearing the Deputies’ contributions during our debate and I once again welcome the good support shown for the Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny and during its passage through Seanad Éireann. I commend this Bill to the House.

Fáiltím roimh an mBille seo. Tá mé tar éis a bheith ag súil leis le tamall de bhlianta anuas agus tá sé go maith go bhfuil sé os ár gcomhair. Ghlac mé páirt sa dianscrúdú a rinneadh ar na ceannteidil den Bhille. Bhí sé an-spéisiúil domsa a bhfuil spéis agam sa stair ach tá sé spéisiúil, measaim, do a lán daoine lasmuigh den Teach seo mar tá spéis agus meas ag muintir na hÉireann, den chuid is mó, ar na hiarsmaí agus ar an tseandálaíocht ársa atá againn sa tír seo, ní hamháin na rudaí atá san iarsmalann nó sa mhúsaem ach sa tírdhreach, san ailtireacht agus a leithéid atá le feiscint timpeall na tíre.

Chomh maith, tá a lán de sin nach bhfuil le feiscint timpeall na tíre. Tá 130,000 nó mar sin iarsmaí ann agus a lán acu, níl a fhios ag an bpobal fúthu. Tá an t-ádh linn faoi sin mar dá mbeadh a fhios acu b'fhéidir go mbeadh siad ag satailt ar an stair agus ar an tseandálaíocht sin i ngan fhios dóibh féin. Sa chuid is mó, tá tromlach na national monuments sa tír seo ar tailte príobháideacha agus tá ár mbuíochas mar Stát agus mar mhuintir ag dul dóibh siúd atá ag tabhairt aire agus cosanta do na hiarsmaí sin. Is reilig iad a lán acu nó b'fhéidir gur carraigeacha ogham nó rudaí dá shórt atá ann, atá leagtha amach agus atá i tailte. Tuigeann an feirmeoir, de ghnáth, cad go díreach an luach atá ann. Ní féidir luach airgeadais a chur ar a lán den stuif seo.

Seo ceann de na príomhfháthanna gur gá dúinn an reachtaíocht seo a bheith againn. Caithimid é a dhéanamh ionas go mbeadh muid i dtiúin le tíortha eile agus leis an reachtaíocht i dtíortha eile maidir leis an gcosaint ar ghá d'iarsmaí seandálaíochta nó ailtireachta agus gur gá dúinn stop a chur leo siúd atá ag déanamh dochair do na suíomhanna seo. Chonaic muid le tamall de bhlianta anuas go raibh daoine ag dul isteach agus ag déanamh graifítí ar chloiche nó a leithéid nó go mbíonn daoine, gan eolas, ag déanamh damáiste. Tharla briseadh cromleice i bPáirc an Fhionnuisce níos luaithe i mbliana, thíos in aice le Séipéal Iosóid, toisc go raibh an tarracóir ró-ghar don uaigh, cromleac nó marker de shórt éigin, rud a bhí ann breis is 3,000 nó 4,000 bliain ó shin. Aineolas a bhí ann go raibh duine le tarracóir in aice leis agus gur bhuail sé é agus ansin tá an damáiste déanta. Ní féidir é sin a dheisiú i gceart mar is cloiche móra millteacha atá ann.

Ní féidir linn ach oiread dul siar agus an stór stuif a goideadh ón Armada amach ó chósta Ciarraí a fháil ar ais. Nuair a bhí mise óg is cuimhin liom na daoine ag teacht leis na báid thapa agus ag dul amach. Bhí siad ag rá i gcónaí nach bhfuair siad aon rud ach bhí siad ann bliain i ndiadh bliana ag caitheamh airgid agus ba léir go raibh siad ag tógáil óir nó seaniarsmaí den Armada leo agus á ndíol ar an margadh lasmuigh. Bhí sé i gcoinne an dlí ansin ach beidh sé i bhfad Éireann níos measa dóibh amach anseo. Tá súil agam ní hamháin go mbeidh an reachtaíocht rite againn ach go mbeidh an Garda agus Óglaigh na hÉireann nó pé dream atá ag cosaint na hiarsmaí san fharraige páirteach, go mbeidh tuiscint acu agus go mbeidh maoin agus na háiseanna ar fad acu chun tabhairt fúthu siúd atá tar éis iarracht, thar na blianta, ár stair agus ár seandálaíocht a ghoid ó Éirinn.

Mar a dúirt mé, tá daoine ann atá ag triail an domhan a scrios. Agus mé ag póirseáil le déanaí tháinig mé ar seanleabhar beag, The National Monuments of Ireland. Foilsíodh é seo nuair a rugadh mise, in 1964. Tá liosta ann de na national monuments ar fad in Éirinn agus bhí 505 ceann ann ag an am sa Stát seo; bhí breis is 300 ó Thuaidh. Is léir ag an am go raibh meas ag daoine as seo agus gur thuig siad é agus tá i bhfad Éireann níos mó ann anois. Is cuimhin liom, nuair a bhíomar ag caint faoin reachtaíocht seo ag an staid réamhreachtaíochta de, go raibh ceist ann an féidir linn nó an gá dúinn liosta iomlán dóibh a leagan síos agus tuigim an dainséar atá ansin mar tá roinnt acu in áiteanna iargúlta nach bhfuil aon chosaint ann agus mar sin caithimid a bheith cúramach. Áfach, caithimid tuiscint a bheith againn go bhfuil siad ann mar níl an iniúchadh ceart déanta ar a lán de na suíomhanna seo agus ní bheidh mar níl an t-airgead againn mar Stát.

Tá an buntáiste againn go bhfuil an oiread sin stair againn, go bhfuil an oiread sin de seandálaíocht ann agus go bhfuil tuiscint agus meas, den chuid is mó, ag an bpobal ar an oidhreacht atá againn. Tá sé tábhachtach go leanfaimid ag cur leis an meas sin agus go leanfaimid ag cur leis an tuiscint atá ag an ngnáthphobal ar an tseandálaíocht, ar na suíomhanna seo agus ar an ailtireacht atá timpeall orainn. Ní ghá dúinn ach dul go dtí tíortha eile, áit nach raibh an meas acu uaireanta agus áit gur scriosadh an tseandálaíocht. Tharla a lán de sin sa tír seo chomh maith; ní ghá dúinn ach smaoineamh ar Frascati House nó Wood Quay, an Ché Adhmaid. Both of those were regrettably bulldozed. We cannot bring them back, which is the problem. It shows what happens when people who do not have the full appreciation of our heritage, archaeology or history that most of us have get to make decisions. This is why it is important we have the licensing regime here so that when monuments are identified or when there is any doubt, there is a very clear process in the future by which to approach anything of historical value. When in doubt, they have to ask so that you cannot bulldoze the O'Rahilly's house in Herbert Park, Archer's Garage or Wood Quay, which was one of the worst cases of civic vandalism that occurred in this city but has happened elsewhere. When the Minister of State announced we would have good news, I thought that he was going to compulsorily purchase Moore Street, but once again he is missing the boat. Hammerson is in dire straits.

What did the Government say it had last week? Was it an extra €8 billion or €9 billion? What is a few million euro to buy Moore Street and change the whole area into a proper national monument to show the working-class history of Dublin, the street traders and the connection with the revolution? We are missing the boat. Yes, I welcome the fact that a number of buildings have been retained by the State but we are falling way short, and I will continue to campaign for the entire terrace and a number of other associated buildings to be protected and revitalised in the way I have laid out in this House and elsewhere so that we can allow people to imagine a revolution that happened in 1916 and to imagine how the street traders plied their trade over the years. I welcome the news that there is a market on Moore Street as well as the existing market stallholders, who have stood the test of time despite the dereliction. If anybody is really interested in this Bill, I encourage them to look at the An Taisce presentation to the Oireachtas Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media when it carried out pre-legislative scrutiny.

It outlines quite well what the State is facing in trying to protect so many monuments together.

It is important that we are all on the same page. In 2001, the Heritage Council published Archaeological Features at Risk: A Survey measuring the Recent Destruction of Ireland’s Archaeological Heritage, which established that 34% of the State’s archaeological monuments had been destroyed since 1840. That is an absolute scandal. We need to be the generation that protects the rest of those monuments and makes sure that people can enjoy them. We must also ensure that whatever archaeological finds are made, the museum is central to preserving them and that it is properly resourced to share them with the rest of us on this island and with the rest of the world.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I will talk about some of the cultural vandalism that took place in Dublin. Dublin is a unique city. It is my city. We must protect its cultural and historical identity. There has been a move by developers and planners to modernise Dublin to the extent that when one walks down the streets, one could be in any European city. We must be sure that we protect the archaeological heritage of our city.

We have been waiting for this Bill for decades. It could address many issues, but, as An Teachta Ó Snodaigh said, it is too late for some, most notably Wood Quay, the unique Viking settlement, which was bulldozed in the 1970s to build council offices. Archaeologists, historians, politicians, academics, writers and activists, young and old and from all walks of life, joined forces for a decade-long struggle against the destruction of this Viking site. Something like 20,000 protesters were on the streets of Dublin to voice their opposition to the destruction of the site. Protestors ultimately lost the battle to preserve it because Dublin Corporation found a loophole in the law that permitted it to proceed with the construction of the Civic Offices. Will the Bill close that loophole and prevent another travesty such as that relating to Wood Quay from happening in the future?

I have spoken before of how, more recently, we saw the demolition of The O’Rahilly’s house. That happened despite a unanimous vote by Dublin City Council to save the building. The State and its agencies have a dreadful record when it comes to protecting our heritage. The demolition of the house in question was an act of wanton vandalism in respect of our revolutionary history. While 40 Herbert Park was not a significant architectural site in itself, it had immense cultural and historical importance. The Asgard gun running operation was planned there, and all the signatories of the proclamation met there. Dublin City Council unanimously passed a Sinn Féin motion to protect the property. Like many, I was shocked and saddened when the house was levelled to the ground.

The Minister of State mentioned Moore Street. A priority for Sinn Féin is stopping the destruction of the hallowed 1916 battle site at Moore Street which the developers, Hammerson, wants to turn into a shopping centre. I welcome the Minister of State’s comments that some progress has been made to protect some of the terrace, but we must extend the protection to the whole terrace and the other buildings there. There is a chance to reimagine what the 1916 battle site could look like. It is a chance to protect it, not just for me but for my children, grandchildren and for future generations so that we can remember the sacrifices that were made in 1916. Deputy Ó Snodaigh has a Bill that is awaiting Committee Stage, the purpose of which is to facilitate the preservation of this historic street as a cultural quarter in line with the wishes of the relatives and the historians. The 1916 relatives thoughts must be taken into consideration in relation to any changes to this street. We should not have any more commercial development in the vicinity of Moore Street. We must protect it. I wish to read the following into the record: "There should be no further commercial development work in the vicinity of this site or in the area. The strongest way to secure that is to designate it as a historical quarter.” These are fantastic words. I wish they were mine, because I would love to take credit for them. They were uttered by the current Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, in the Seanad in 2015. Were they empty words? Were they not going to be followed through on when he got into government? We should double down on the commitment that he made regarding the preservation of the site.

I have a lot of connections with Moore Street. My grandparents had a tailor's shop not far from Moore Street. Moore Street was like a playground for me. I spent an awful lot of my childhood in and around Moore Street listening to the sounds and so on. I often think that if old Dublin could speak, it would sound like Moore Street. I always had a really strong connection with it. I was at a well-attended meeting in Liberty Hall recently hosted by the Moore Street Preservation Trust. We were given a very impressive and passionate presentation by the architect Seán Ó Muirí on what Moore Street could and should look like as a historical and cultural centre. We must preserve this street where The O’Rahilly made the ultimate sacrifice and preserve the buildings where Patrick Pearse, Connolly, Plunkett, Clarke, Seán Mac Diarmada and Willie Pearse held a council of war. We must preserve the site where the decision was made to surrender to save civilian lives in the knowledge that surrender meant they would be shot by the Brits. We must do everything possible to preserve this site.

In October 1874, one of the first monuments to be taken into the care of the State was the Rock of Cashel, which dominates the skyline of my town of Cashel and which contributes in no small part to the economy of the town and the surrounding area. Visitor numbers alone bear testimony to this. Over 170,000 people were recorded as having come through the doors of the rock by the middle of last August. Since 1874, nearly 1,000 monuments at 768 locations have been taken into State ownership. I welcome monument structures and other items which serve to recall aspects of our history and development as a country being offered such protection. To see a Bill come before us which seeks to give greater powers of protection in respect of our built heritage, among other things, is welcome.

One provision of the Bill is that the area around a monument may be specified and protected if so doing secures the protection of the monument. This is particularly important where monuments or structures have a deep historical significance and where estates may extend well beyond the visible site, such as in the context of undiscovered features underground.

The Bill must include measures to protect historically significant monuments from subsequent works or the building of structures in the immediate vicinity that may take away from the associated historical importance of the setting within which a monument stands. There are places that do not benefit from such protections but that can teach us lessons in the context of aspects of our history that we need to preserve. Take the old workhouse in Tipperary town. To see it falling to rack and ruin because of issues with previous restoration programmes is deeply unsettling to say the least. If we are to preserve what has deep historical significance for communities across the country, we need to more nuanced system of preservation. Since the project relating to the site, which originally got under way more than a decade ago, ended abruptly, the workhouse has been a shadow of itself. I would like an attitude to be adopted whereby the State would play a more active role with councils, either investing to repurpose structures by means of projects that would benefit localities or to actively seek investment to rejuvenate them while maintaining their historical significance and identity.

Then there are structures in private hands that are of historical significance. One such building is the Knocklofty House outside Clonmel. I have spoken to the Minister of State about this before. That has fallen into a complete state of disrepair. His Department had provided some funding for minor repair works. Those funds were returned unfortunately. Ownership issues were at play. Even so, the level of funding available would only patch it up temporarily. That leads me to my request that the Minister of State would consider the Government’s built heritage scheme to review the worst cases of neglect that we see pepper the country.

I thank the Minister of State and the Department for putting the Bill together and the joint committee for its deliberations on it. It would be remiss of me not to mention the need for the owners of thatched buildings to have them insured. The Joint Committee on Public Petitions deliberated on this issue on behalf of a number of petitioners. Unfortunately, the report that was issued recently on this fell far short of producing a tangible result. It is a report which lists ways by which to prevent fires from occurring, but that is not enough. Most of the insurers of these buildings have now pulled out of the country and no longer offer policies that are in any way affordable to the people concerned. Owners of these buildings are looking for the Department to intervene in a meaningful way to assist them in addressing this. They are concerned that the approach to date has been too hands-off to have any real impact. The image of the thatched building in our country is a draw for tourists across the world. As things stand, postcards are the only means by which they will be able to see them soon.

Ireland is never shy to market itself to an international audience on its heritage. Ireland's Ancient East campaign by Fáilte Ireland, for example, is deemed a tremendous success in attracting people to that region of the country. We have a magnificent archaeological and built heritage that we should be proud of and that deserves celebration. We should be keen to share it with visitors to Ireland. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the central role heritage plays in allowing us to connect with who we are and those who came before us. It allows us to see into our past and helps us to create our vision for our future. Its social, cultural and intellectual value cannot be understated.

In his address to the Oireachtas two weeks ago, President Biden said: "Ireland's story is no one's to tell but its own". It is our heritage that informs that story. Innovations in technology and connectivity have been wonderful in allowing us to learn about and share in the cultural experiences of people the world over. Our heritage allows us to take our own distinct place in the cultural melting pot of the world. However, with that comes a responsibility to protect it.

There have been a number of amendments to the existing Bill since its inception, some of which are good and some of which are bad. I want to pay special tribute to the current President Michael D. Higgins. I know the issue of our heritage is a matter of great personal importance to him. His Heritage Act 1995, which established the Heritage Council, is a very good Act given the important work it does.

It is fair to say, however, that we have a somewhat checkered record regarding the protection of our historical and archaeological heritage. For all the pride and intrigue it engenders in us, we have been guilty of some appalling destruction of our monuments and sites of significance. The destruction of the settlement at Wood Quay is an example that springs to the mind of anyone who is from Dublin or who has an association with our city. So, too, is the way in which the Iveagh Markets in the Liberties have been allowed to remain in a state of dilapidation for so long. That the building has not been redeveloped and has remained idle for so long is a shame and a blight on the city. It is encouraging, however, to see the campaign to bring the Iveagh Markets back into use, which has been ongoing and gathering momentum. That is a testament to how much the building means to the people of the Liberties in particular.

I sincerely hope this Bill goes some way to improving the protection of our built heritage. However, I have a number of concerns that I believe are worth noting. First, I find it odd that nowhere in the Bill is the National Monuments Service, NMS, mentioned. We recognise that the conservation and management of monuments is the responsibility of the Office of Public Works, OPW, but the NMS is the State body that is responsible for archaeological licensing and I assume, given that this has previously been the case, it will be the regulatory authority for the Bill. It will have responsibility for implementing this legislation, so it is strange that the Bill makes no mention of it. I would appreciate some clarity on the mandate of the National Monuments Service as it pertains to this Bill in the Minister of State's concluding statement and further into the debate.

It is also a concern that there is no archaeological expertise within An Bord Pleanála. If we are serious about protecting our archaeological heritage, we need that expertise with the board of An Bord Pleanála immediately. I have of course read the Planning and Development Bill. It is my belief that this Bill and the Planning and Development Bill are intrinsically linked; one will impact the other. Planning policy and guidelines will dictate how well we really protect our heritage. To give an example from my own constituency, a large souterrain with script on one wall, which possibly dates back to as far as 500 AD, was discovered by a farmer who was sowing crops in Donabate in July 2022. The site itself rests on lands that are owned by a private developer. An application for a strategic housing development, SHD, of 1,365 units had been submitted to An Bord Pleanála in 2020. The National Monuments Service confirmed that this monument would be included in the next review of the records of monuments and places, which would afford it legal protection. However, because the souterrain was not discovered prior to the SHD application to the board, it did not form part of the planning application. When a local Labour Party representative, Corina Johnston, wrote to the board to notify it of this historic discovery, she was told that there was no provision in the SHD legislation for any person or body to make a submission or observation on a case outside the statutory time period or to supply the board with additional information. Therefore, any information submitted would not be taken into consideration when determining the case. Permission to proceed with the development was granted by the board in October of last year, although it is now subject to judicial review. I am aware this was flagged with the Minister at the time and it was requested that the Minister grant a temporary protection order given the potential significance of this souterrain.

All of this is to say that while the streamlining of how we deal with our historical and archaeological heritage that this Bill seeks to achieve is welcome in some fashion, as I have said, I would raise serious concerns about how we actually protect our heritage from a planning perspective. There are hundreds of monuments that have been discovered that are still awaiting inclusion in the next review by the Record of Monuments and Places on the recommendation of the National Monuments Service. At the time of the discovery, recommendations were made by archaeologists, some of whom were within our own city and county councils, that a certain perimeter around such monuments should be provided to ensure they are not compromised. Sadly, however, it is all too common that developers are submitting proposals to reduce these perimeters and the board of An Bord Pleanála and other planning authorities are overriding the original protections. If we are to make a genuine effort to improve the ways in which we protect and celebrate our historical and archaeological heritage, we need to see that commitment reflected in our planning legislation. The two need to work in tandem with planning to give due regard to the value of our heritage.

As this Bill goes through the House and before the committee, we will likely introduce amendments across four key areas. We are concerned about the narrow concentration of powers that this Bill has the capacity to deliver. We are concerned about the impact on environmental impact assessments, EIAs, such as they exist. What we need is stronger wording in that regard. We need to look at the inseparable links between tangible and intangible heritage. That is something that needs to be discussed again and improved upon. We need to look at participatory democracy and the link with the draft Planning and Development Bill. In that context, we need to look at the issue of lands that are adjacent to lands of archaeological and significant heritage. We look forward to debating that and to bringing that forward on Committee Stage.

First, I welcome this Bill. There are good parts in it. The Minister of State has a tendency to come into the Chamber and reference the pre-legislative report and process, which I think is very good. I want to acknowledge the input into the pre-legislative process, especially by An Taisce, Archaeology Ireland, the Local Authority Archaeologist Network, LAAN, and others. We have a habit of pointing out that most of the recommendations in the pre-legislative report have unfortunately not been taken on board by the Minister of State. Only two of the nine recommendations, according to the Bill Digest from the Library and Research Service, were taken on board.

That being said, I welcome what the Minister of State said in his remarks about the Valletta Convention and about tabling further amendments on that on Committee Stage. That is an area in which I have a very particular interest, so it is positive that the Minister of State is listening to the concerns about that. I very much want to see what is in those amendments. The Minister of State has not given us any detail in his opening comments about what those amendments are likely to look like or what sort of substance will be in them. That is a very important part of this. If the Minister of State has any information on that, I urge him to give it to us during his closing remarks or, if not, as soon as possible. That will obviously impact the amendments we will table as well, because of all the issues in the Bill, that is the issue to which I want to draw attention. I will be addressing it quite considerably in my remarks.

There is no question - other Members have drawn on this - that we in this country place huge value on heritage when it comes to tourism, economic development and marketing the country. Yet, that is not always carried through in how strongly heritage is protected in practice. The Heritage Council's report from the survey it did in 2001 on archaeological features that were at risk is absolutely damning. It showed that 34% of the State's archaeological monuments have been destroyed since 1840 and that the destruction was continuing at an alarming rate. When we are looking at this Bill we should be incredibly mindful of that.

There are approximately 1,000 monuments on 750 sites that are in the ownership and under the guardianship of the State. However, the remaining 129,000 monuments are in private ownership and vast numbers of these are not accessible to the public. That is very concerning. Access to monuments is not an issue that is addressed in this Bill. There are situations where there has been access over the years to monuments that are of very high value and for which there is huge public interest. Then, landownership has changed and that access was cut off. In my own local community, there is Aideen's Grave Portal Tomb, which is a monument that dates back thousands of years. Until recently, walking tours were able to get access to that monument. The new owner, which is a commercial entity, has now stopped that access for walking tours.

Why would it not want guided walking tours, a very responsible form of access, to have access to a key monument?

Since 2007, only nine prosecutions have been taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the recommendation of An Garda Síochána for alleged offences under the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 2014. Given the level of destruction that has been documented as having gone on, the fact there has been only that level of enforcement action shows the scale of the issue.

We have to do everything we can to protect national monuments. The legislation must be robust enough to serve us well for decades to come, something to which the Minister has committed. We cannot rely simply on the goodwill and interest of individual Ministers; it must be robust enough to protect our heritage if a future Minister without sufficient interest comes along. It is significant that if we were to ask when the most recent archaeological discovery by accident took place in Ireland where a decision had been taken to preserve and even restore the find, we would not get a lot of answers from people.

The Deputy might conclude in order to allow for the adjournment of the debate. He will be in possession when the debate resumes on Thursday.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share