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

Amendment No. 11 will ensure "archaeological reserves" will have the same meaning as in Articles 2 and 4 of the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, that is, the Valletta Convention. The term "archaeological reserves" should be incorporated in the Bill as interpreted in accordance with the principles and requirements as laid out in the articles of the Valletta Convention. On 13 February 1997, as Deputy Ó Broin noted, Dáil Éireann ratified the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, that is, the Valletta Convention. Twenty-six years later, it still has not been implemented in full. While the Minister of State has made some minor concessions in response to arguments put forward in the Seanad, the most crucial aspect of the convention remains unhonoured, namely, the aspect relating to archaeological reserves or landscapes. It is highlighted in Articles 2 and 4 of the convention. Article 2 states: “Each Party undertakes to institute, by means appropriate to the State in question, a legal system for the protection of the archaeological heritage, making provision for: (i) the maintenance of an inventory of its archaeological heritage and the designation of protected monuments and areas; [and] (ii) the creation of archaeological reserves”. Article 4 states, “Each Party undertakes to implement measures for the physical protection of the archaeological heritage, making provision, as circumstances demand: (i) for the acquisition or protection by other appropriate means by the authorities of areas intended to constitute archaeological reserves; [and] (ii) for the conservation and maintenance of the archaeological heritage, preferably in situ".

It is alarming that no statistics or information is available, among all the licences issued over the past 20 years, regarding how many archaeological finds have been preserved in situ. If this were an area on which we were strong, the Minister of State would be able to say we had issued, say, 20,000 licences over 20 years and kept 1,000 archaeological finds in situor preserved, or he would be able to tell us what the case was. He would be able to tell us whether some of the finds are now open for tourists and visitors and are part of our tourism offering, with economic benefits coming from that and so on. Instead, we cannot be told of any that have remained in situ. I certainly cannot think of any off the top of my head.

A reserve can be defined only as a delineated area with clearly identifiable boundaries. A good analogy for this example, with which most people will be more familiar, relates to architectural conservation areas. They have delineated boundaries and are clearly shown on a map. Without mapping the reserves, how are people to know the extent of the protected area or reserve? Where in the Bill is the issue of archaeological reserves addressed and defined? It is important to do that.