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

Before I speak on the amendments, I said in my last contribution that no member of the Heritage Council had archaeological expertise. I have just been informed that, in fact, two have such expertise but none are academics in history or anything like that, and we still do not know how many archaeologists are employed by the Heritage Council. That is just to clarify what I said earlier.

Amendment No. 92 is concerned with trying to ensure that with regard to the removal of any monument from the register, there is a degree of oversight to ensure that a Minister cannot in any way remove a monument without having sought the approval or support of the bodies that we have tasked with protecting our heritage, such as the Heritage Council or Ard-Mhúsaem na hÉireann. That is the effect of amendments Nos. 92 and 93.

Amendment No. 94 is an attempt to ensure there are mechanisms through which the public can engage and to ensure the Minister would seek a public participatory element, so the public can play a role, through the local authority, to try to have their views known in the event of a removal from the register. It may sound cumbersome but it is that type of participatory politics that we all aspire to. While it sometimes elongates a process, we are better off as a democracy if the public are engaged because they then feel they have ownership of some of the decisions.

On amendments Nos. 96 and 97, the idea is not only that the public play a role, but also that the Oireachtas plays a role. We have an Oireachtas committee that has responsibility for heritage - in this instance, it is this committee and in other instances, it could be a different make-up, depending on which Department is involved. The idea is to allow a committee to have a final say in regard to the removal of a prescribed monument. As Deputy Cian O'Callaghan said, the removal of a monument from the prescribed list, and from the protections that affords, usually only means one thing. I cannot think of a situation where that was not the case unless there was outright fraud, but because it is historical, the fake might sometimes be more valuable than the real thing. A removal in the past meant only one thing, which is that it was for destruction. It was to run a road through it or, as I said, to build a shopping centre, a local authority building or the like.

That is where a judgment happens. It is where the public, the elected members and the experts all have a role to play to make sure that whatever decision is taken, there is either no alternative or else the historical or archaeological monument is not as valuable as some might believe. My father worked in the National Museum of Ireland for years. People would be aghast at the approach the museum would have to some material which would be of huge value in the public eye. However, if there are 40 or 50 copies of something, it is no longer as valuable. It is important and needs protection, but it is not the be-all and end-all.

I have engaged with officials from the Department when auctions come up and there is a clamour in the newspapers to the effect the State needs to purchase the item, but the State might already have three or four copies of the item, which might be important and valuable. I am trying to figure out why else, other than destruction, we would remove a national monument from the prescribed list. Perhaps the Minister of State can point to examples in that regard. It might be that a national monument is in such a state that it is a danger to the public or might fall down, and there have been cases of that nature. Nevertheless, even for the sake of protecting the Minister, the more people who are involved in a decision such as that, the more protection there will be for the Minister and the better it will be for our society as a whole, not least if the public is allowed to have some say on the matter.