Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will follow on from that point. I want to direct all my questions to Dr. Clinton. I welcome all our guests. I read all the submissions and they are excellent. I have got a very positive vibe frorm them. I soldiered with Dr. Clinton on an issue related to Carrickmines Castle a long time ago, therefore, I know of his work and expertise in this area. I want to pick out a number of questions, technically, posed in An Taisce’s collective submission. How can it be appropriate for a Minister - it ties in with what he was about to say - who has granted an excavation licence on strict archeological conditions to be the authority that can subsequently issue the destruction order for the same monument, in direct contravention of the terms of the original licence? That is taken word for word from the An Taisce's submission. It is an important point. I have serious concerns about the powers of a Minister with responsibility for heritage or any other Minister. I want to clearly state I am not directing that comment at the current Minister as we have a really good committed Minister on the job at the moment, but we do not know who will be coming down the line. I say it in a measured way. I have thought about it. I pay tribute to the current Minister and I do not doubt his commitment. An Taisce's submission goes on to state: "How can it be acceptable that there is no cultural-heritage court of appeal or [cultural] ombudsman to adjudicate on the fate of disputed sites and monuments off note?" That is a good point and one on which I will ask the committee to consider making a strong recommendation. The submission also comments on the value of having the input of an appropriate and qualified advisory council. That is an excellent idea and one I would fully support.

We all know about the Valletta Convention and I will not go into the detail of it. We know its importance and significance. I would suggest an acknowledgement in the Long Title of the Bill with respect to the Valletta Convention would cover us. I would like to hear Dr. Clinton's view on that. I think it is an important aspect.

An Taisce, in its submission, also raised a concern about archaeologists working in the private sector and conflicts of interest with respect to developers, etc, and that is a very valid one.

First, they are not in a position to rule in favour or against their paymaster. If one is an archaeologist employed by a massive developer that wants to carry out some destruction, there is a conflict of interest. I am not saying all developers do or seek to do that. I am just saying there are cases where it happens. The witnesses say that a National Monuments Service and National Museum of Ireland-employed or accredited archaeologist answering to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage or the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media is important.

In summary, the Valletta Convention is critically important. Regarding reactivating the monuments advisory council, the witnesses make three good sharp and concise asks, which I acknowledge. I am directing my questions to An Taisce because I know its vast experience in this area. This relates specifically to issues it posed in its submission to us today. I thank everybody who made submissions. I am generally supportive of this piece of legislation.