Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the presentations and in particular the discussion we have just had around the advisory council. Dr. Clinton might be able to continue that in his answers to me because it is an area where we could have North-South co-operation, given that the Border is a modern construct and we have the whole island in respect of archaeology. The hinterlands people stood in at the time did not have the political boundaries we have now, but different political boundaries. Much of that is to be discovered. They spoke French, Norse and whatever else as well.

I deal with An Coimisinéir Teanga a lot and it would not be the model to follow, in my view, in respect of an ombudsman, because we do not want it to be a complaint after the fact but before it. The model in the North would probably be much better. It would be useful for the committee if a piece of work was done and circulated. Maybe the Oireachtas Library and Research Service could be asked about how different advisory councils work in different jurisdictions. That might be able to feed into the work in preparation for this.

I welcome the quote from the Heritage Council's study that 34% of the State's identified archaeological monuments, and there are so many more as we have seen, have been destroyed. I have not read the report, but does it have a list, or examples, of the destruction and where it is? I know of some but, again, it would be useful if that report was circulated. If it does not have a list, will the representatives provide us with examples of this destruction?

On foot of that, would the representatives accept that the vast majority of people who are owners, holders or protectors of national monuments in fact care for and protect them, given that we have 130,000 or so of such monuments? They do that with little or no help from the State or local authorities and are put in an invidious position where they are expected to look after something for future generations, yet we do not do any work.

I have many other questions, but the final one relates to the identification of these sites. Looking at the defences that can be used, ignorance is one of them. Do the witnesses agree, and this is relevant to the archaeologists, local authorities and the representatives here today, that a lot more needs to be done by the State to identify these sites, whether it is through Google Maps, a cue card or some type of signage, which states that this a national monument and cannot be interfered with, or whatever warning sign?

The Supreme Court judgment in the Moore Street case was mentioned and the finding that the Minister can dictate the full extent of the historical landscape. Do the representatives think, from what they have read so far, that issue is addressed in this legislation?