Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh on introducing this Bill again. As he said, it was put forward in the past. I agree with some of the Minister's contribution around the series of events that have taken place this year. The sense of national pride which many of those commemorations brought out was evident to see across the country. That is something we need to foster and expand and we need to do it in an inclusive manner. Nobody is arguing about that. For the Minister to suggest - perhaps it was intentional or it may have been the way it came across in her contribution - that a Bill which is being put before this Chamber to designate a day as Lá na Poblachta would be divisive and would undermine the series of events that have gone on this year is at best naive. It is probably calculated because she spoke about inclusivity, reaching out a hand and making sure everyone has a say, but then she went on to criticise the Bill and some of the language in it.

I will refer to some of the language in the Bill because the Minister referenced this. Regarding the proposed board, five functions are outlined for it in the Bill, but in her contribution the Minister conveniently added functions 3 and 5 into one function. For the purposes of clarity, I will quote Part 4, section 5(3) and we can see with what part of it the Minister does not agree. Section 5(3) states:

The function of An board shall be to annually promote, encourage, co-ordinate and fund a programme of events, in commemoration and appreciation of the contribution made to the Irish nation by those who, during the centuries of occupation of Ireland by a foreign power, gave their lives and liberty to pursue the freedom of the Irish nation. It shall also seek to raise awareness and promote discourse, analysis and understanding of the ideals and aspirations contained in the key revolutionary documents and events leading up to the declaration of the Irish Republic at the GPO on Monday 24th April, 1916.

I am not sure what the Minister's issue is with that function. The Minister conveniently mentioned function 5, which states: "In promoting, encouraging, co-ordinating or funding the events referred to in subsection (3), An Bord shall ensure that such programme of events will include events to take place in each county of the thirty-two counties of Ireland and shall have no cover charge." I know what her issue is with that. It is that she looks at the country through a partitionist prism, which is a Twenty-six Counties prism. In her contribution she said: "I am actively working on a significant legacy programme, which will encompass our arts and cultural sectors, with a specific focus on increasing cultural participation in every county right across the country". That is where I would differ with the Minister. For me, my country is Ireland, all Thirty-two Counties. It is quite clear that the Minister's country is the Twenty-six Counties State. That is why there are differences of opinion when we talk about having events throughout the country. We include everyone. That includes our Unionist and loyalist brothers in the Six Counties. We are not excluding them but the Minister seems happy to exclude them in her proposals to work on a legacy programme, which will be a Twenty-six Counties, as opposed to a Thirty-two Counties, based legacy programme. It is a bit rich to talk about being inclusive when she takes a partitionist view when it comes to our shared history.

The Minister mentioned the cost involved. I will quote what she said because it is important. She stated: "While a proposal to introduce an additional bank holiday is bound to draw populist support - something about which I am sure Sinn Féin is very aware". That was a low remark because anyone who knows anything about the history of our party would be aware that we are certainly not trying to introduce a public holiday to commemorate 1916 as a populist move because for many years, when parties like the Minister's party failed to commemorate 1916, we were commemorating it year after year. We were commemorating the Proclamation and the values and vision of those who gave their lives in 1916. It is not fair to say we are doing this for populist reasons because if that were the case, the likes of the Minister's party would have been doing it since its foundation.

The Minister went on to state: "Our job, as public representatives, is to consider the wider implications of such a move and, in particular, the additional costs for businesses". Again, that is where the difference in the ideology comes. We do not look at this issue simply in terms of costs. We look at it in terms of what it can bring to citizens across this island, not the Twenty-six Counties but all Thirty-two Counties. I find it insulting that the Minister tries to shoot down a Bill on the basis of costs yet she was the one who defended a court case in regard to the Moore Street buildings taken by a citizen who wanted to designate the entire battlefield area as a national monument. The Minister defended the State's analysis of that and despite being defeated in that court case, she then decided to appeal it.

It is very two-faced for the Minister to talk about costs when she is quite prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of euro of taxpayers' money on the Moore Street development. She cannot have it both ways. She cannot talk about the legacies of 1916 and at the same time be happy to see the battlefield area around Moore Street being turned into a commercial development. She wants to save three houses, but people have seen through this.

In recent years Ireland has become a very multicultural society, something I welcome. We have seen people from many cultures come to our shores and the generosity of the Irish people in making them part of our community. We have seen examples of all of the values contained in the Proclamation about treating everyone equally. For all his faults, the former Minister for Justice and Equality, former Deputy Alan Shatter, introduced a very good initiative in having citizenship ceremonies. He almost made them a day of culture. It was an opportunity for individuals who were new to our shores to not only gain citizenship but also to learn some of the history of how we had developed as a nation. Many of these events were based on the Proclamation, the declaration of independence and the democratic programme. As we continue to grow as a nation and see more people come to our shores from different cultures, backgrounds and traditions, it is important for the individuals concerned to understand Irish history, culture and traditions. Many values within the Irish psyche come from the democratic programme and the 1916 Proclamation, among others.

I am disappointed but not surprised to learn that the Minister will oppose the Bill. When one strips away all of the rights and wrongs, the two of us come to the legislation from very different ideologies. We come to it from a 32-county basis of inclusivity, whereas the Minister comes to it with a Twenty-six Counties partitionist mindset. It is no wonder we will never meet on this issue.

See this speech in context