Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Ireland is never shy to market itself to an international audience on its heritage. Ireland's Ancient East campaign by Fáilte Ireland, for example, is deemed a tremendous success in attracting people to that region of the country. We have a magnificent archaeological and built heritage that we should be proud of and that deserves celebration. We should be keen to share it with visitors to Ireland. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the central role heritage plays in allowing us to connect with who we are and those who came before us. It allows us to see into our past and helps us to create our vision for our future. Its social, cultural and intellectual value cannot be understated.

In his address to the Oireachtas two weeks ago, President Biden said: "Ireland's story is no one's to tell but its own". It is our heritage that informs that story. Innovations in technology and connectivity have been wonderful in allowing us to learn about and share in the cultural experiences of people the world over. Our heritage allows us to take our own distinct place in the cultural melting pot of the world. However, with that comes a responsibility to protect it.

There have been a number of amendments to the existing Bill since its inception, some of which are good and some of which are bad. I want to pay special tribute to the current President Michael D. Higgins. I know the issue of our heritage is a matter of great personal importance to him. His Heritage Act 1995, which established the Heritage Council, is a very good Act given the important work it does.

It is fair to say, however, that we have a somewhat checkered record regarding the protection of our historical and archaeological heritage. For all the pride and intrigue it engenders in us, we have been guilty of some appalling destruction of our monuments and sites of significance. The destruction of the settlement at Wood Quay is an example that springs to the mind of anyone who is from Dublin or who has an association with our city. So, too, is the way in which the Iveagh Markets in the Liberties have been allowed to remain in a state of dilapidation for so long. That the building has not been redeveloped and has remained idle for so long is a shame and a blight on the city. It is encouraging, however, to see the campaign to bring the Iveagh Markets back into use, which has been ongoing and gathering momentum. That is a testament to how much the building means to the people of the Liberties in particular.

I sincerely hope this Bill goes some way to improving the protection of our built heritage. However, I have a number of concerns that I believe are worth noting. First, I find it odd that nowhere in the Bill is the National Monuments Service, NMS, mentioned. We recognise that the conservation and management of monuments is the responsibility of the Office of Public Works, OPW, but the NMS is the State body that is responsible for archaeological licensing and I assume, given that this has previously been the case, it will be the regulatory authority for the Bill. It will have responsibility for implementing this legislation, so it is strange that the Bill makes no mention of it. I would appreciate some clarity on the mandate of the National Monuments Service as it pertains to this Bill in the Minister of State's concluding statement and further into the debate.

It is also a concern that there is no archaeological expertise within An Bord Pleanála. If we are serious about protecting our archaeological heritage, we need that expertise with the board of An Bord Pleanála immediately. I have of course read the Planning and Development Bill. It is my belief that this Bill and the Planning and Development Bill are intrinsically linked; one will impact the other. Planning policy and guidelines will dictate how well we really protect our heritage. To give an example from my own constituency, a large souterrain with script on one wall, which possibly dates back to as far as 500 AD, was discovered by a farmer who was sowing crops in Donabate in July 2022. The site itself rests on lands that are owned by a private developer. An application for a strategic housing development, SHD, of 1,365 units had been submitted to An Bord Pleanála in 2020. The National Monuments Service confirmed that this monument would be included in the next review of the records of monuments and places, which would afford it legal protection. However, because the souterrain was not discovered prior to the SHD application to the board, it did not form part of the planning application. When a local Labour Party representative, Corina Johnston, wrote to the board to notify it of this historic discovery, she was told that there was no provision in the SHD legislation for any person or body to make a submission or observation on a case outside the statutory time period or to supply the board with additional information. Therefore, any information that submitted would not be taken into consideration when determining the case. Permission to proceed with the development was granted by the board in October of last year, although it is now subject to judicial review. I am aware this was flagged with the Minister at the time and it was requested that the Minister grant a temporary protection order given the potential significance of this souterrain.

All of this is to say that while the streamlining of how we deal with our historical and archaeological heritage that this Bill seeks to achieve is welcome in some fashion, as I have said, it would raise serious concerns about how we actually protect our heritage from a planning perspective. There are hundreds of monuments that have been discovered that are still awaiting inclusion in the next review by the Record of Monuments and Places on the recommendation of the National Monuments Service. At the time of the discovery, recommendations were made by archaeologists, some of whom were within our own city and county councils, that a certain perimeter around such monuments should be provided to ensure they are not compromised. Sadly, however, it is all too common that developers are submitting proposals to reduce these perimeters and the board of An Bord Pleanála and other planning authorities are overriding the original protections. If we are to make a genuine effort to improve the ways in which we protect and celebrate our historical and archaeological heritage, we need to see that commitment reflected in our planning legislation. The two need to work in tandem with planning to give due regard to the value of our heritage.

As this Bill goes through the House and before the committee, we will likely introduce amendments across four key areas. We are concerned about the narrow concentration of powers that this Bill has the capacity to deliver. We are concerned about the impact on environmental impact assessments, EIAs, such as they exist. What we need is stronger wording in that regard. We need to look at the inseparable links between tangible and intangible heritage. That is something that needs to be discussed again and improved upon. We need to look at participatory democracy and the link with the draft Planning and Development Bill. In that context, we need to look at the issue of lands that are adjacent to lands of archaeological and significant heritage. We look forward to debating that and to bringing that forward on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context