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

Amendment No. 79 is about battlefields that have historic value in another state. If accepted, it would require the Minister in such cases, of which there is just a select number, to send a description of any proposed works and any available information on the possible effects on the environment of the battlefield to the state or jurisdiction in question. An example is the battlefield at Aughrim. The Battle of Aughrim was fought on 12 July 1691, according to the old-style calendar. Given that the Gregorian calendar was adopted in Britain and Ireland only in 1752, it is correct to use 12 July. This was one of the most international battles fought on Irish soil. The Irish Jacobites and French forces were pitched against the English, Ulster Protestants, Dutch, Danish and French Huguenot Williamites. The battle was the bloodiest fought on Irish soil. Approximately 4,000 Irishmen and Frenchmen died, whereas the Williamites lost approximately 3,000 men. The latter were buried in shallow graves and the former were buried roughly about the battlefield. Therefore, there are at least 7,000 burials at the site. The battle was known in Gaelic Ireland as "Eachdhroim an áir", or Aughrim of the slaughter. The battlefield has already been under threat. The environmental impact assessment for the M6 motorway in 2005 revealed that the roadway could cut across the northernmost wings of both the Jacobite and William outlines. The intervention of environmental groups and the expressed objection by the then Northern Ireland First Minister prompted an adjustment of the trajectory of the road. What protection does the battlefield enjoy today? What is the legislation doing in this regard? On the National Monuments Service website, one will find that, besides the ruins of a castle that featured in the battle, the only other battlefield-related feature is a trackway known as Luttrell's Pass. That is not described as an archaeological monument and, accordingly, is not featured in the revised list of monuments. How can the Minister of State justify not giving battlefields that are highly significant in our own history but also in that of other jurisdictions proper protection by defining them as archaeological landscapes of international importance and significance, as my amendment seeks to achieve? I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.