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

I will withdraw amendment No. 48. In doing so I am acknowledging that the Minister of State has addressed the concerns that have been raised at different stages of this legislation by identifying one of the key features of our historical and archaeological landscape. People will associate it with some of the battlefields sites that are more contemporary but there are older battlefield sites that we could have done a lot more to protect or at least give some kind of recognition to, even in this city. In Clontarf, for example, there is not much left of the landscape that was there but that is not to say that we should not do a lot more. There are battlefield sites outside of the capital also. We have had the argument around the battlefield site in Moore Street and all that it is connected with. I will not rehash all of that. Are the additional protections that we are granting those national monuments retrospective? In the case of Moore Street, there are planning applications before An Bord Pleanála at the moment which will interfere with what is left of the Moore Street area and that key battlefield site. There is also the question as to what the OPW will do with the GPO itself now that the vast majority of it is vacated, with An Post moving down the Quays. The post office is still in situso that is a question not necessarily for this piece of legislation. I am asking whether this is retrospective and whether we afford it that additional protection at this stage.

Some people looking at this will see that in passing this legislation, we are giving protection and greater awareness of the context. It is back to this context that a battlefield site is not just a small cross or a plaque on the wall. Almost too long ago for me to remember, some 40 years ago, I travelled to the battlefield site in Ridgeway in Canada. This was the site of famous battle between Fenians who had crossed over into Canada and taken on the Canadian militia. They intended to hold the Canadian territories that the British held at the time as ransom for the freedom of Ireland. Canada got its freedom at that stage but Ireland did not. The site was laid out as a battlefield. They had protected where the battle had taken place and they had restored where the injured from the battle lay. In recent times there is much more cultural and historical tourism, so it is not only our own people who visit the sites but also people from abroad. Given our history of immigration, there is not just an archaeological benefit and awareness. We can also benefit financially sometimes from the protections we grant, where we leave the context intact. In this way, people can come and imagine what things were like 100 or 1,000 years ago. It allows the stories to be told in whatever way they can be. History is history, so the Irish did not win all of the battles. Some of those battlefields where the Irish lost need to be protected as well and remembered in the same way. In fact, we lost most of the battles in Ireland. However it is part of our history and we need to protect it, so that is why I give full recognition to what is being proposed in this amendment. Hopefully it will have the desired effect.

See this speech in context