James Bannon (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State. He never rises in this House without referring to my native county of Longford. I thank him for that and would point out that I am a member of Longford Historical Society. Indeed, I was a member of the county council when we moved a resolution for the retention and refurbishment of the 1798 courthouse, a landmark in the centre of Longford town. We recently acquired a grant of €30,000 for the protection and refurbishment of the 12th century Cistercian abbey in Abbeyshrule in County Longford, for which I thank the Heritage Council.

The National Monuments (Amendment) Bill 2004 is an extremely worrying and indeed suspect piece of legislation, which has been drawn up without consultation. Never has the clash between present and past been greater. The drive to create and expand our horizons is aided and abetted by our increasing knowledge and technological advances. However, the destruction of the primary sources of our history is inexcusable in our headlong rush towards progress and economic supremacy. It is up to us to continue and expand the work of our past but if a destruction of our history is permitted in the name of the present and future, we will deprive our children of the invaluable knowledge of their heritage.

There is no greater history lesson than the one visible in one's own area. Archaeological sites provide a tangible link between the present and the past and give an immediacy to history that has an impact far greater than any written word. Our national monuments are unique and irreplaceable. Visitors are conscious of this and it is the factor which draws them to Ireland. They come to enjoy the rich diversity of our history, heritage and culture. They are even prepared to suffer the less desirable aspects of rip-off Ireland to do so.

There is an air of desperation and haste about this Bill, which the Minister is seeking to rush through before the summer recess. Let us not overlook the fact that this legislation has been forced upon the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government by a series of mistakes which both he and his Department have made over a number of years and the court's decision on completion of the M50 at Carrickmines.

There is an acknowledged confusion between Departments in terms of responsibility as outlined in the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 1994. The clarification sought in this legislation is akin to handing over guardianship of our past to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, a heavy responsibility — I am sure the Minister of State will admit — with potential drastic consequences for the preservation of our national monuments.

I regret the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is not in the House for this debate. If his handling of the debacle of electronic voting is anything to go by, I would have the greatest reservations about the preservation of our heritage. This anxiety is further fuelled by the extraordinary lack of definition and clarification of the term "national monument" in the Bill. Dr. Dave Edwards of University College Cork remarked that the legislation lacks any basic definition of what is a national monument and comes from the ideological mindset which views heritage as a problem. The Minister of State needs to explain what is, in his opinion, a national monument. I do not believe he understands what is a national monument. This issue must be clarified if every road project is not to be open to the accusation that its path goes through a national monument.

More worrying is the real fear that a genuine site with legitimate claims to national monument status may be judged by the Minister or his Department to be expendable. In other words, the Minister's word or discretion could cause injury to, interference with or the total destruction of a national monument. That this destruction could be attributed to the perceived public good is a moot point. I strongly urge the Minister to include a proposal for an independently assessed grading of sites according to their importance. The Bill, as drafted, contains no such provision resulting in the interpretation of a national monument and the pitfalls that could accrue to this decision being left to one Department without recourse to expert advice.

As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, section 5 replaces section 14 of the principal Act as regards injury to national monuments and allows the Minister to grant consent for the carrying out of works to a national monument notwithstanding the fact that such works may involve injury to, interference with or the destruction in whole or in part of the monument. The Ireland of saints and scholars is shaking in its shoes. Can the Minister of State put our fears at rest or will time show that the interests of Mammon have been well served here today at the expense of our heritage? This issue has been raised in the past and was raised again this morning.

The introduction of this Bill arises from a decision made in the courts last January. However, the situation vis-À-vis Carrickmines has deteriorated and is now costing taxpayers €1 million a month. The Bill has been introduced as a direct consequence of the courts overturning the Minister's decision to allow work to destroy or remove medieval remains at Carrickmines Castle. I am personally happier when such restraints can be put into place.

Construction of necessary infrastructure is one thing but the provisions of this Bill could apply in an ad hoc way to any proposed development, private or public. If passed, this legislation will give total discretion to the Minister to determine what endeavour is of utmost importance, an issue about which there is cross-party concern in both Houses and throughout the country. I refer in that regard to the recent e-voting debacle and the loss to the Government parties in the recent local and European elections. The Bill was introduced as emergency legislation to cope with the impasse at Carrickmines caused by the Supreme Court ruling but, unfortunately, it goes further and removes all protection for national monuments in the face of road development with no veto for the National Museum.

We must have guarantees that where an irreplaceable archaeological monument is discovered, an alternative route for a proposed road will be found.

The Chief Justice in Mulcreevy v. Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government — the second Carrickmines case — referred to the amendments effected by the 1994 Act as being effected in a remarkably tortuous and oblique way. By comparison to the Bill before us, it is a model of coherency. The Bill, as opposed to the 1994 Act which reflected the consensus in Ireland among concerned parties regarding the treatment of national monuments, will eliminate that consensus in order to effect a conclusion to the Carrickmines saga.

I have great concerns about the effects of this legislation on the environment, which should obviously also be of concern to the Minister. Heritage is recognised as an important aspect of the environment fundamentally intertwined with all aspects of living, working and recreation in the country. Protection and conservation of our heritage protects and conserves our quality of life, culture and identity. Our heritage includes many aspects of the world around us — the landscape, hedgerows and field systems, lakes, rivers, plants and animals. We must recognise the limited capability of the rural landscape to absorb new physical development without compromising its unique character and heritage. It should be the aim of every county development plan to conserve and protect its county's heritage through the process of development control and by affording identified monuments, artefacts and areas of relevance full statutory protection. Another part of our heritage is our history of folklore, language and customs — our cultural heritage.

Planning applications for housing developments should include provision for the naming of estates in recognition of the heritage of the area in which they are situated. Funding must be made available to investigate and promote the provision of improved access to important archaeological sites. The Government, State agencies and local authorities have been negligent in the provision of proper access to national monuments of importance in different townlands throughout the country. Also, the Government has failed to tackle the issue of trespass and insurance.

The Bill provides the National Roads Authority with total freedom to prepare inadequate environmental impact assessments and to have no regard to the merit of archaeological sites encountered. The Act appears to provide the appearance of a safeguard by creating a role for An Bord Pleanála, but that arises only if the Minister issues a direction. The NRA must inform An Bord Pleanála if a direction is issued. An Bord Pleanála must then determine whether the approved road development is materially altered as a result. Ultimately, the hands of An Bord Pleanála are tied. It does not have a role in respect of national monuments, other than having regard to "landscapes of historical culture or archaeological significance". It does not have an influence on national monuments.

When one takes the various concerns into consideration, it seems that the Minister will be responsible for a delicate balancing act between the past and the future, and between the various interests and the proposals. The wishes of the various interests will be subject to the whim of the Minister of the day. My experience of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, suggests that we should have doubts in that regard. I hope that the scales will be weighted properly. I do not trust the Minister, Deputy Cullen, to play a fair game. If he is not removed from office for other reasons, he will certainly be removed because he intends to dismantle our heritage, culture and archaeological artefacts. I have expressed serious and genuine concerns about the Bill, which Fine Gael will oppose.