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

Regarding amendment No. 89, I can see where a difficulty arises if the National Museum, the Heritage Council and An Taisce has to consult on amendments to 180,000 national monuments. I will consider the matter again, but I believe that those three bodies should be consulted in the event of a deletion. How many of the 180,000 are expected to be deleted from the list? I imagine it would be few. On the other hand, amendments may just add to them or make minor changes. However, I will withdraw this amendment and resubmit it, although I will probably leave out the provision on amending so that the bodies would be consulted before the deletion of particulars from the register.

The Minister of State gave a long response to amendment No. 177. Experts issue guidance to most of the archaeologists working on national monument sites, with most archaeologists having acted under the direction of the National Museum down the years. As such, this amendment is an attempt to address the need to ensure oversight of that situation by the National Museum at a higher level than is currently the case. Having studied archaeology, I understand the destructive processes of any archaeological site. In fact, most archaeologists would prefer that most of our national monuments had never been discovered and had remained in situ. In many ways, they have to deal with the consequences of us humans disturbing soil and managing to discover things that are often well preserved and well protected where they are. The figure of 180,000 is an underestimation of what we have, which shows the scale of what this legislation is intended to protect. During pre-legislative scrutiny, we discussed this matter with the Heritage Council, the National Museum and An Taisce. It is phenomenal.

I will deal with amendment No. 264. Various inventories have been done over the years. Some of them were public and some were not. Some we do not want to be public so as to discourage those whom this Bill is intended to discourage from going out with their metal detectors and so forth and interfering with sites. It shows the wealth of our heritage.

None of my amendments is intended to undermine the intentions of the Bill. They merely try to ensure that we have the best possible protections. Whether responsibility lies with the Department and its National Monuments Service, with the Heritage Council or with the National Museum, I will not be precious about it once it is clear who has responsibility and where the expertise lies. This relates to what Deputy O’Callaghan said about the need to ensure that those bodies had the requisite wherewithal and expertise. None of the three bodies I have mentioned have the necessary resources. For example, the Heritage Council has no archaeologists on its board. The Minister of State answered that question last week. We did not get the figures the Deputy was seeking. If we are speaking about 180,000 national monuments, we will need to scale up the number of archaeologists available to the State if we are to protect them from damage and preserve our history and heritage so that, where they are exposed above ground and it is appropriate to do so, current and future generations of people from Ireland and abroad can enjoy them.

I will withdraw amendment No. 89. I will withdraw the second amendment and consider what the Minister of State said – it was a long response – to see whether my amendment is out of sync. I will withdraw my final amendment based on the Minister of State’s comment that he will re-examine the matter and see whether an amendment could be made on Report Stage.