Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I also welcome those who are here from the Iveagh Markets. I remember the markets very fondly as a kid when it used to sell second-hand clothes and I was able to get my velvet suit jackets and my Farah trousers there. I wholeheartedly support its preservation. Sinn Féin welcomes this Bill. As is very clear, the existing legislation which dates back to 1930 is not fit for purpose and needs modernising. I hope the Bill will address many of the issues facing our archaeological and historical heritage. Ireland markets itself on its heritage and landscape and yet the reality is that we actually have a very poor record of preserving both our built and natural environment. We only have to look at what happened to the O'Rahilly house that was demolished by greedy developers with scant regard for the historical significance of the building and the lack of any recourse in that matter. During the 1970s, we bulldozed the unique Viking remains at Wood Quay. Sinn Féin hopes that this Bill will put a stop to that wanton destruction and, in particular, will put an end to the horrendous plans to turn the hallowed ground of the 1916 Rising on Moore Street into a shopping centre. I sincerely hope this Bill will protect the battle sites so that the vision put forward by relatives and historians for the cultural quarter, as set out by my colleague Deputy Ó Snodaigh in his Bill, can be realised.

Section 2 clarifies that a reference to certain things such as archaeological objects, buildings and monuments includes a reference to a part of that thing. Will the Minister of State clarify if this could be expanded to also incorporate the integrity of a monument within its surrounding context? Again, this is of particular importance in places like Moore Street where only certain buildings in the old terrace are protected while others are not. This allows for the effective destruction of most of the terrace and therefore destroys its coherency and removes the site from its historic setting. A few lone buildings surrounded by a tasteless modern behemoth of a shopping centre would not do justice to that historic monument.

In 2014, I went to the Council of Europe and met with the secretary general of architectural heritage at that time to raise the issue of Moore Street and what the plans were. She was appalled and the Irish ambassador at the time refused to meet with myself and the secretary general. The secretary general was appalled that a country would demolish its most important battle site in its history. At the time, she compared it to other cases and pointed out how other European countries were actually rebuilding battle sites from rubble, such was the value they attached to their heritage. I am sure if I went to see her today she would be similarly appalled by plans to open a hotel on the side of the Rock of Cashel. She flagged the Faro Convention at the time so I echo the calls from Senator Boyhan that it is important that Ireland signs up and ratifies that treaty. As I said, I hope the Bill will incorporate the context of a monument in order to prevent such developments as those we are seeing on Moore Street and at the Rock of Cashel.

Section 4 of the Bill sets out the territorial extent of the Bill's application. I believe we also need a discussion on how to protect the historic and archaeological heritage of Ireland that is now elsewhere; whether that is as a result of colonial plunder or unethical means. We all heard recently, after more than two centuries of being displayed in a museum against his expressed dying wish, that the remains of Charles O’Brien are now no longer on display in the Hunterian Museum in London. Likewise, housed at Oxford University’s Bodleian Library are the Annals of Inisfallen, which is a manuscript written in Irish and Latin on 57 folios of vellum, begun in 1092 and describing events from as early as the 5th century. We need to have provision for the repatriation of our heritage and I would like to hear the Minister of State's views on that.

I would also like to hear from the Minister of State as to the rationale behind section 12 not allowing for elected members of local authorities to prescribe monuments. I point again to the O'Rahilly house, the structure of which Dublin City Council unanimously voted to protect but was ignored.

I use my final time to raise something I know the Minister of State is aware of but to which I have been trying to get answers over the past year; that is what happened in Emo Court. We are here today to give greater powers of protection for our built heritage and that is, of course, welcome. We have an Office of Public Works, OPW, that has the responsibility to manage our built heritage and monuments yet it seems to take a cavalier attitude to the law. How can we have faith in the OPW to do its job and protect our heritage when we have it in black and white that it chose to absolutely disregard the law at Emo Court? It carried out works there without a derogation licence, and in so doing, disturbed an annex 4 species of long-eared bat under the habitats directive. It was told by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to cease the works and chose to ignore that letter and carried on the works. Then we have a situation that when this was investigated by a National Parks and Wildlife Service ranger and a recommendation in that report was for prosecution of the OPW for breaches of regulations under the habitats directive, somebody somewhere made a decision to not implement these same recommendations. We know now from another freedom of information request that the bats have not returned to Emo Court so not only did the OPW disturb the bats, which is enough to warrant prosecution under the habitats directive, but it destroyed that roost. Those responsible suffered no consequences. This Bill is important and it is welcome. If the OPW, which is responsible for the built heritage, can decide it can pick and choose which heritage laws apply to it, and if the Minister can then turn a blind eye to that, what assurances do we have that this legislation will make a blind bit of difference to preserving our heritage? It really is important that the OPW, the Department and the State set the example so that when developers are watching on, they can see that we are not just seen to implement the law but also to uphold the law. I have serious concerns about the OPW and its scant disregard in circumstances when it chooses to ignore the law it has responsibility for upholding.