Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 29 is to include in the list of bodies and definitions the national monuments advisory council. It is absolutely critical, and I made this point on Second Stage, that we have such a council as part of the safeguards and checks and balances on this legislation, especially when, never mind the language in the Bill, we are talking about provisions that will provide for the demolition, removal and elimination of monuments. I will first consider the bigger picture. The National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 in its current format has failed our historical and archaeological heritage. How many archaeological excavation licences have been issued over the past 20 years since the introduction of the Act? How many of these licensed excavations led to the discovery of archaeological remains? How many of these new discoveries have been preserved in situ?

How many of these new monuments of significance have been added to Ireland's heritage orientated visitor tourist portfolio? Surely it could not be the case we are still simply promoting archaeological heritage from previous discoveries but not including ones from the past 20 years. Given the significant loss of monuments over the years, as documented by the Heritage Council, how many prosecutions were taken under the Act over the past 20 years? I am asking those questions in the context of what difference this Bill will make, as it currently stands, without a national monuments advisory council in preserving in situ archaeological finds and protecting newly discovered monuments of significance. If the Bill does its job well, it should preserving and protect in situarchaeological finds of significance. We should not be in the position we have been in for the past 20 years where a huge number of licences were granted but few archaeological remains were preserved in situand there was so little protection and so little added to the portfolio of what is promoted in this country.

There is a very strong case for a national monuments advisory council. Despite the use of the Heritage Council as a point of consultation, effectively in the Bill as it stands, all power will rest with the Minister. How could it be appropriate to have that amount of power resting with the Minister of the day? At the moment the country is discussing issues, which I will not go into the detail of, where there has been a concentration of power within an organisation and there is all sorts of fallout from that. It makes no sense whatsoever in terms of archaeological heritage to give so much overreaching power to the Minister and not to have something like a national monuments advisory council to balance that. There needs to be checks and balances on the Minister's powers that this Bill seeks to provide.

The national monuments advisory council should be re-established. Independent expert advice is needed. Decision-making should not rest entirely in the hands of one individual. How many professional archaeological staff and historians the Heritage Council has at the moment to assist with this? If the Minister of State does not accept my amendment, why does he not want to avail of the external expertise that re-establishing a national monuments advisory council would provide?

It is generally accepted that the most recognised leading authorities in the various elements of archaeology are found outside the public service. That is no disrespect to anyone in the public service but there is a huge amount of expertise available. There are specialists for every different area and that is very important in terms of understanding archaeological finds and knowing what is and what is not a significant find. Why would we not want to have a national monuments advisory council to help to do that work? It is worth noting that the Historic Monuments Council in the North is operating very well and very efficiently to this day. Its origins date to the ancient monuments advisory council established in 1926 and it continues to this day as the Historic Monuments Council. I do not believe there is anything in terms of the archaeology in the North that is of greater value and that it deserves an advisory council in terms of these processes but somehow in the Twenty-six Counties our archaeology does not deserve that.