Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Yes. I think the Minister of State is trying to do exactly what I am trying to do with amendment No. 71, which is to clarify the sequence to make sure that no monument that is deemed prescribed is added to the register of monuments. Currently, it is unclear if the process requires a monument to be identified as prescribed and then redesignated as registered in order to receive the protection. While the intention might be there, this law needs to be as clear as day to ensure that all monuments get the protection that is intended.

Amendment No. 72 and, I think, amendment No. 73 relate to ensuring the protection of battlefields and the locations of battles, in this instance those from the revolutionary period of 1916 to 1923. We are just coming to the end of the decade of centenaries. In fact, I think we were due to have a committee meeting on that tomorrow but, as far as I know, it has been put off until another week. This Bill, which I hope will be enacted before the end of the year, would be a fitting end to the decade of centenaries and would look at the likes of Moore Street, in particular. I have a special interest in that, but it is not the only place. The expert advisory group, way back when the report was made in 2008, as part of a review of this legislation and other legislation, which in fact recommended this Bill, called for battlefields to be defined and protected. Is that out of sync? The amendment would have that intention and that effect, so there is an attempt on my part in amendment No. 73 to put that definition in a format. I do not know whether or not that is acceptable, but it looks at a battlefield or an area which is designated in respect of combat or related activity. I have been involved in many commemorative events with the State.

In Dublin in 1998 we had the 1798 committee marking different sites around this city. At the time Séamus Brennan was the Minister of State in charge of commemorations. There was a lot of designation and a lot of interest, and a lot of small towns around the country found again or re-engaged with their revolutionary history of that period. A lot of interest was awoken in family links. My father wrote a lot about the yeomanry and the militia, the history of different families over the years who were in militias and the families who were on different sides. Then we had the 1798 battles. People will know of Vinegar Hill, Oulart, parts of Arklow and so on. They are recognised now as battlefields but not all of them have the same protection. Part of the selling point of Ireland for people returning is often to visit these sites, whether it is the Battle of Aughrim or whatever else. It is not just to do with the more recent revolutionary period of 1916 to 1923 but goes back in history. Most of those sites have never been archaeologically looked at, and I have asked sometimes. They are not small or compact but they are areas that, I believe, have to have the protections to ensure people do not dig or search on them, whether the 1798 period or before, for pikes or the remnants of battles. That is the idea here.

Amendment No. 74 seeks the engagement of the public to ensure that the public can petition a Minister to include a relevant thing. The Minister does not have to accept it, but it is a mechanism whereby 1,000 signatures from the public would warrant a response from the Minister over a six-week period. Obviously, the Minister would in this instance have to engage with the Heritage Council, a museum or An Taisce. The amendment seeks to ensure that the public have a role, and we have seen in the commemorative period that the public have engaged fully in that role.

Amendment No. 76 is to require the inclusion of a surrounding area necessary for the protection of a monument or thing. The existing wording makes it optional to include the area necessary for protection. Again, this is about changing "may" to "shall". In this instance, the Minister of State should seriously consider it.

Amendment No. 78 is to ensure that the particulars on the register include the integrity of the monument within its surrounding context rather than just the surrounding area. There is cohesion associated with the surrounding context. It sometimes includes the social or cultural context or the social and cultural history. We all know areas around the country where the context has been interfered with. I will not rehash this point here, but the Tara-Skryne valley is one case. There were plans for a hotel at the Rock of Cashel. Moore Street is an example of where the context would be lost if a high-rise apartment block, shopping centre or other such structure were built. Some such developments have fallen by the wayside but that is not to say there will not be others. Occasionally, we see pictures of little churches abroad that are dominated by high-rise buildings on every side, meaning the context is totally lost. There are examples in this city of where the context of a church or other building is totally lost because the surrounding area has not been protected. A classic case in America is the Alamo site. Here the context has been lost. You would have to watch the famous film to see some of the context rather than just the barracks. That is not to say we have to stop progress on building, but those planning for the future should have regard to a building's surrounding area and engage with the Minister if the context must be interfered with in any shape or form.