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

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 33, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(5) (a) In the case of historic, archaeological and cultural heritage produced in or which originated in Ireland, but which is beyond the territorial extent set out in subsection (1)as a result of theft, plunder, deception, colonial practices, other unethical methods or where there is doubt surrounding the provenance of heritage understood to be of Irish origin, the Minister shall actively endeavour to secure the repatriation of such heritage to the island of Ireland, including through the petitioning of states and institutions in current possession of the heritage.

(b) The Minister, and any relevant public bodies in the possession of relevant heritage and in receipt of State funds, shall cooperate with requests for the repatriation of heritage produced in or originating in other states which have come to be within the territorial extent set out in subsection (1)as a result of theft, plunder, deception, colonial practices, other unethical methods or where there is doubt surrounding the provenance of heritage understood to be of foreign origin, in any instance where such repatriation is sought by a state of origin in accordance with this subsection, unless such a state fails to agree to cooperate with efforts by the Minister under paragraph (a)on the basis of reciprocity.”.

The amendment would ensure that the Minister and the Minister's agents would have a responsibility or duty to endeavour to secure the repatriation of heritage. A lot of heritage falls within the definition of "national monuments". There is a greater understanding of repatriation in the current age. It is not just one way either; there is repatriation the other way. There is a lot in the ethnographical collections in the museums here that was robbed, stolen or plundered from other countries around the world. If reciprocity with those countries is expected from us, it would be remiss of us not to seek the many Irish treasures that were plundered over the years by those who sought to control Ireland and put those treasures in libraries or sent them elsewhere. We should seek them back. A number of items are on loan back from the British but are, in fact, Irish in the first instance. It is good they are on loan in our institutions, but they should not be on loan because they were Irish in the first instance. There are others, such as the remains of the Irish giant, Derry-born Charles Byrne, which are on display in London's Hunterian Museum. That was against his dying wishes. He was a figure of fun to many when he was alive. Those remains should be returned. There is the shrine of Inishkeel, County Donegal, which was stolen in the 1800s. I could go through a list. One of the interesting things is that many of the manuscripts contained in many of the British libraries and university libraries are bound by Irish manuscripts that were shredded and sent back to make bindings from, so the covers of those books hold the equivalent of the Book of Kells and so on, and over the years they have emerged. They are in themselves Irish so there should be a duty to seek them out. In fairness to the National Museum, over the years it has moved heaven and earth to try to ensure that our collection has as many of our national treasures and national monuments as possible.

The same could be true of the Armada. When I was a young fella in school, there were ribbed boats in Dún Chaoin heading out and diving and never finding anything, but they were there long enough that somebody was funding them, or they were funding themselves through plundering the wreck of Armada ships in that location. All of a sudden, a number of years later, all this new sunken treasure from the Armada appeared in museums and elsewhere around the world.

We have at the moment a movement that is seeking the return of treasures held in Irish museums. It is not fully related to this, but if we are seeking the protection of our national monuments, we need to have them where we can protect them. That is where we need to replicate what we expect others to do in sending back artefacts.

Given the era we are in, we can make 3D and life models of material we hold and scan them in order that we hold that information on them but we should return those artifacts, whether it is the Benin bronzes or the copy of the Koran we hold. We only need to go next door where there are mummified remains on display. These should not really be on display. We should display a model, hologram or whatever but in my view, and that of many others, it is not appropriate for human remains to be displayed in such a way. We should set a standard. We should play a role in decolonisation and encourage others to do likewise. We have a job of work to do and it needs to be borne in mind in anything we do on national monuments. That is why I have submitted amendment No. 40.

See this speech in context