Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Yes, I understand. We will start at the start, as they say. These amendments are attempts by me to lay out definitions of archaeological heritage, archaeological interest and archaeological reserves. They are attempts to try to reflect. When people look at a piece of legislation, they turn to the definitions to see what is covered. In looking at what is covered, these are attempts to show that, in some ways, there are gaps. There is a requirement for us to be very clear in what we are trying to do. The Minister of State said there would be a need to redraft even the amendments I have put down, but that not even acknowledgment that there is a value to some of the concepts included in those amendments, in particular in amendments Nos. 7 and 8, where we are talking about "archaeological heritage" including "structures, constructions, groups of buildings, developed sites, moveable objects". It is a definition that is quite clear and easy to understand. The same goes for what "archaeological interest" is, in that it means objects, structures, sites and what not. It tries to ensure the protections the conventions give are quite clear in this legislation, and that at an early stage, we have set out the protection required and what is protecting them. I am talking about the Valletta Convention in particular, and the archaeological reserves there. That is amendment No. 11.

We will then turn to amendment No. 13, and that is to include surrounding grounds. I was interested in this. Later on, there is another amendment dealing with "context". It is in this grouping and it deals with the context of archaeological objects or heritage. Context is very important in all of this and one of the failings we have had over the years is that context has not been given its due respect. That is why it has been easy, in some ways, for some of the destruction we have seen to go ahead because context was not laid out and defined. There was no attempt to define that context.

I have gone back over Men Who Eat Ringforts, the book by Sinéad Mercer. There are other features in it as well but that lays out all of the ringforts that have been destroyed over the years. It is an absolutely fantastic book and an easy read. One would just pick it up and read it from cover to cover. It details how we have lost 30,000 monuments throughout our history. It is not all down to us modern people wrecking the place, or farmers or anything else. Some of them disappeared for other reasons.

In the main, however, the book sets out what we have done in recent times and how our monuments have disappeared. We understand the purpose of this Bill is to try to give those protections and that is why we will not be opposing it. All our attempts are designed to make it stronger and to give greater protection so future generations can benefit from what we are doing here today. We are trying to ensure we do not have the liosanna around the country where the shapeshifters, as they were called, the sióga, lived. We are trying to ensure protection so that once again, the next generation understands that the shapes of our country are defined not only by our historical and archaeological heritage but also by our natural heritage. If people understood that, they might be making films like "Guardians of the Galaxy" about Ireland. We have so much history and mythology that we could make many such films. Either Ms Mercier in her book or someone else I was talking to recently told me that during the Covid-19 pandemic, people got a greater appreciation of these things. Any amendments I have submitted are an attempt to ensure we have the best and clearest protections. I am not inclined to withdraw any of the amendments that the Minister of State has mentioned to date. On amendment No. 23, I can understand the point because it is a technical amendment that I would have no problem withdrawing. It deals with whether the Bill should include an "and", an "or" or both together. I concede on that amendment. However, I think we need to go a lot further in our definitions in this legislation.

See this speech in context