Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Private Members' motion. I compliment the various signatories to the motion as it gives us the opportunity to debate and find the best way to celebrate the centenary of the 1916 Rising. We all want to ensure it is commemorated in a respectful and dignified fashion and that the two monuments encompassed by this motion, in particular the national monument in Moore Street, can be dealt with. I commend all those who have campaigned on this issue over the years to ensure this monument and the GPO, the focal points of the 1916 Rising, would be properly preserved and play their part in the commemoration of 1916 in the future in the best form possible. I compliment the relatives of the signatories of the Proclamation of Independence who have been ably led over a number of years by James Connolly Heron, a descendant of James Connolly.

The campaign began in 2002 when the National Graves Association informed me that the commemorative plaque which had been erected in 1966 on No. 16, Moore Street, had been removed. I tabled a motion in Dublin City Council that No. 16 Moore Street should be deemed a preserved structure. The plaque had been removed by a member of a consortium involved in the development and which had certain property rights on a number of houses on Moore Street. Under pressure from Dublin City Council, the plaque was restored but no apology was received from the person who deliberately removed it and had prevented the building from being deemed a preserved structure.

A public meeting was held in the Mansion House hosted by the then Lord Mayor, Dermot Lacey. I refer to a motion agreed by Dublin City Council:

Considering the historical importance of No. 16 Moore Street which was the building where the last meeting of the Provisional Government of the Irish Republic Parliament on Easter Monday 1916 was held, with James Connolly, Pádraig Pearse, Willie Pearse, Seán MacDiarmada, Joseph Mary Plunkett and Thomas Clarke attending, and where the decision was taken to surrender on Saturday 29 April. Dublin City Council agrees that No. 16 Moore Street be retained and incorporated into the planned regeneration of the immediate area and further agrees that No. 16 Moore Street become a repository of artefacts and documents relating to the historic events of 1916 and be developed as a public information and education centre.

This motion was passed unanimously by Dublin City Council on 7 May 2003.

Dublin City Council declared the house a protected structure and commissioned the Shaffrey report which is well worth reading and which recommended that Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street should be included in the preservation order. The then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and the Minister for the Environment, Dick Roche, declared Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street a national monument.

This has been a developing process and there is scope for further development. Dublin City Council gained possession from the Carlton consortium by a compulsory purchase order as a result of terrible behaviour by the private sector. It is now in the possession of the O'Reilly consortium.

The private ownership and the An Bord Pleanála permission pose certain problems. The State has responsibility for national monuments and the Minister and the National Museum of Ireland have specific roles. There is also an all-party consultative group. The relatives of the signatories of the 1916 Proclamation are anxious to expand the parameters of the national monument Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street and to integrate the two national monuments into a natural geographical area and to ensure that the character of the development is appropriate.

In his contribution to the debate last night, it would seem the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, committed himself to engage in full consultation. He stated his primary concern would be to arrive at a determination that would best serve the long-term preservation and protection of the national monument and the commemoration and remembrance of the epic period and personalities associated with it. There is a window of opportunity for all-party discussions with the Minister. If this motion is put to the House tonight and the Minister's amendment is not accepted, then we will have divided the House and it will be very difficult to move forward in any constructive manner. I ask the proposers of the motion to hold off so that we might agree a certain period of time. I have not spoken to the Minister but he indicated in his remarks last night that he was open to consultation on the matter in an attempt to reach a satisfactory compromise because otherwise it will be a case that the House is divided in its opinion and that would be unfortunate.

See this speech in context