Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Our cultural institutions and buildings embody where we have come from as a society and what previous generations have projected to shape society. In turn, those institutions shape who we are today. When one considers our culture and cultural buildings, one does not have to look further than this House and the surrounding campus to view buildings that house cultural activity. It often troubles me that those institutions are identified as repositories. Instead, they should be living, mobile and national institutions that prioritise outreach. The marks of British colonialism and the aristocracy of the Victorian and Georgian eras remain ever present. We do not shy away from this past and we view those buildings as part of our history and heritage.

In times of war, culture is a forgotten priority of government as it is difficult to value in monetary terms when stringent economic measures often need to be taken. Ironically, culture is often more valued by its citizens and shaped more in war times as the affected people grasp their identity and the factors that shape it.

In wars in the Middle East, such as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, in particular, we have seen cultural property directly and deliberately demolished. Both sides have done so with the great intention of whitewashing local identity and cleansing identity, consistent mainstays of indigenous heritage. It is clear that these targets are often used not only as a grave act of war but as an attack on the morale of the natives who hold their heritage dear.

In May I attended a public conference in Liberty Hall called Conflict + The City organised by Dublin City Council and SIPTU. At the event, Professor Luke Gibbons from Maynooth University recalled how in the months that followed the Rising a small group of Bolsheviks visited Dublin who ultimately adopted urban warfare tactics in advance of the 1917 October revolution. Among that group was a Russian playwright and future Soviet ambassador to Britain. Those newfound tactics of urban warfare that James Connolly had researched and lectured on were inspired by the 1871 Paris Commune. Moore Street and the lanes of history represent that newfound urban warfare. Professor Luke Gibbons noted the personal and the political sacrifice for the public good, the transformation of the public and private, where the interiors of people's homes were tunnelled through by volunteers making inner streets. There was a fusing of the public and private sphere. I suppose it was the concept of republicanism operating alongside socialism that the professor was getting at.

I wish to note the attacks on Moore Street. In 1916, devastation was rained on Dublin city by the British owned SS Helga. The Four Courts was shelled, resulting in the destruction of the Public Records Office. We can all understand the cultural and historical separation that has caused. Alien as it may seem, should this State be attacked in the future, we should consider what effigies of our culture we should seek to protect.

Sinn Féin supports this Bill but we should scrutinise the State's record of protecting our culture, and I mention in particular Moore Street. The intended relocation of the Seanad to the National Museum of Ireland should see the State or Dublin City Council submit a planning application because it may breach the walls of a 19th century protected structure in at least three places and attach a lift to the facade. We need to be conscious of our attitude towards cultural institutions. As I said, Sinn Féin supports the Bill and hopes the legislation will remind the Government of the duty of care we have towards our culture, heritage and the arts. Sinn Féin wishes to remind the Government that its record on culture precedes what it might do in a time of war and we urge that a great emphasis is put into upholding culture now.