Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)

When I was preparing for this debate, I could not help but think of the words of Diarmaid Ferriter which he wrote at the time of the Mahon tribunal report. In an article in The Irish Times he wrote:

As we edge towards the centenary of the events that comprised the revolution of the early 20th century, we face a stark conclusion. This is a State bereft of meaningful sovereignty due to its bankruptcy, and a State whose governing culture has been exposed as rotten. We may have little to cheer about in 2016.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the entirety of Professor Ferriter's conclusion, one point is very clear. That is, that as we approach 2016, which will mark the centenary of the Rising, it will offer a stark counterpoint to where we stand at the moment. If we examine the views of the people of 1916 and what they were trying to achieve, including the ideas they had of the kind of republic they wanted to create, there can be little doubt that the crisis we are facing would be a huge disappointment to them and not reflective of the sacrifices they made.

As regards Professor Ferriter's last point, there are forces far beyond our decision on the Moore Street site that will determine whether or not we will be cheering in 2016. The decisions we will make about the site, however, might provide some cheer to people on the centenary regardless of where we stand on other issues.

I echo the comments by the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, Deputy Buttimer and others. I acknowledge the huge work of the relatives and descendants of the 1916 leaders in keeping the flame of their memory alive. They have kept that flame flickering though very difficult times. I also want to acknowledge the intent of opposition Members in tabling this motion. It would be appropriate if we could find some way of avoiding dividing the House.

I believe the nature of history is to contest it. If we do not have different views on what happened and why, and are not able to discuss them, it is not like history at all - it something that is dead and in our past. The greatest use we can make of history is to debate it and have different views. In that regard, how we discuss our history is inherently a political act, which is both welcome and important. It is not necessarily a party political act, however.

Everybody in the House can trace back what they are doing now to what happened in 1916. In the centenary period we are entering, we should do all we can to ensure that we come together in a political way but not a party political way. We are capable of doing that in so many ways as we commemorate parts of our history. I saw Deputy Adams and other members of his party at Arbour Hill last week.

I hope the points that the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, have made will be taken on board. In his concluding speech last night, the Minister said he wanted to best serve the long-term preservation and protection of the national monument itself and the commemoration and remembrance of the epic period. It was the period that created our nation that led to this State.

As the debate continues, I hope those proposing this motion will decide not to divide the House and instead take up the Minister's offer so we can reflect on it in a proper political fashion.

See this speech in context