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

It is a simple one to make sure action is taken. It is self-explanatory.

Amendment No. 80 makes the same argument I made in respect of amendment No. 78, which is about the surrounding context. Amendment No. 81 seeks, in page 38, line 15, to delete "may" and substitute "shall". It is to require the Minister to take into account topographical features and boundaries where it is currently only an option. If the Minister "may" take action, he or she also may not. The amendment makes sure the Minister shall do so.

Amendment No. 82 is to ensure the insertion of "cultural, including intangible culture, linguistic," after "archaeological,". This is to ensure the Minister will take into account the linguistic interest of a monument or thing when forming an opinion on inclusion on the register. This was argued by my colleague Deputy Ó Broin when discussing amendment No. 34. It is particularly important in a multilingual society and has regard to the likes of Ogham writing, an attachment to the Irish language, or Cant or other oral heritage. The Minister might say Cant is a language but this is a matter of the expression of a language in monuments. Ogham is a classic example but there are monuments with other languages. Again, this is based on an amendment proposed in the Seanad.

Amendment No. 84 is to include a distinct matter to which the Minister may have regard when forming an opinion on a monument or thing. I am referring to its value in terms of archaeology, architecture, art, history, culture, language or tradition. Currently, only the level of interest in the monument or thing may be given due regard, which might suggest interest from academic or scientific perspectives, whereas the intrinsic value of many of our monuments or things is the attachment of the community to them. Local historical interest can often constitute the value, and this results in value as a national monument.

Amendment No. 86 proposes to insert "or community" between "amenity" and "value". At present the wording references amenity value only, which ignores the value a monument may have for a community. It is similar to amendment No. 84. It is often part of a community's identity for tourism or through an association with the community's history. In the past many monuments that are now recognised as national monuments were well protected in many ways by their local communities. It is only in later years that central government or Departments have become more enlightened and have recognised their importance not only in terms of community value but also the identity of the whole island. It is important this be looked at.