Francis Noel Duffy (Dublin South West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their briefings. As always, I welcome their insights and wisdom. I confirm I am on campus.

I concur with Deputy O'Donoghue's comments. I think we are all in the same position. I note that South Dublin County Council has only one conservation officer and that she deals with the county's record of protected structures, RPS, grants; protected structure applications; architectural conservation areas, ACAs; and national monuments. Therefore, I think the issue of resourcing is a countrywide one.

I have spent most of my professional practice working on protected structures. The Bill, and any action that seeks to celebrate and protect our built heritage, is great and welcome. I believe, as do all the witnesses, I think, that our heritage is extremely important as it provides us with a reference point. It is our identity. My experience has shown me we have dedicated and passionate heritage officers. Certainly, the ones I have worked with are dedicated and passionate. The witnesses' contributions and institutions also illustrate care for and protection of our country's cultural heritage. The big issue, however, is the lack of resources and funding. That has always been the problem.

My questions are based on discussions I have had with heritage and architectural conservation officers from various local authorities. As the Chair noted, the witnesses' answers will help our report and help to amend the Bill and to make it better, so I would be grateful for their insight on the following issues. I will direct my questions initially at Mr. Keaney for his views, considering his IPI and local authority roles and his boots on the ground locally.

First, an issue for local authority architectural conservation officers and for the Bill is the possible additional responsibility placed on local authority staff for the changes relating in particular to sites in local authority ownership being given special protection, thereby putting more responsibility on the local authority reaquisition, ownership and maintenance functions. This points to the need for additional funding supports to increase capacity. The Bill proposes to move all graveyards into local authority ownership. This, I imagine, would represent a significant burden on all those local authorities. Are the witnesses aware if additional funding will or can be provided for care, conservation and an increasing staff capacity? The Bill also provides an opportunity to increase expertise in local authorities. I refer in particular to the need for county archaeologists and county heritage officers. Should that be enshrined in this legislation? We need to improve management and protection of our UNESCO sites, and this Bill should provide for that. Furthermore, there is no protection in legislation of archaeological landscapes.

Second, archaeological complexes should be retained on the record of monuments and places, RMP. Sites such as the Curragh are composed of a large number of RMP sites. Therefore, the complex itself should be its own site in order that the larger whole is protected.

Lastly, the Bill should provide for a legislative requirement for a national heritage plan and county heritage plans to ensure the conservation and protection of our country's heritage.

Mr. Keaney might start and give us some feedback on that and on how it might then go into our report.