Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, reflect the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendation by the joint committee around inserting cultural value into the Bill, and specifically inserting it in amendment No. 3 into the same section. As I said, this is the narrow portal currently phrased as:

.. shall not exercise [the powers around the designation] ... unless he or she is of the opinion that the relevant things ... fall within the class of relevant things concerned

[...]

are of archaeological interest [and then it states] and whether or not they are also of other interest.

The archaeological filter is the one everything is required to move through, but the historic piece is not mentioned there. There is almost one aspect which could preclude. There might be something of incredibly important historic interest, which I will come to in my amendments, and significant cultural interest, but is almost looked at in a silo in terms of passing the archaeological bar first. The reason that could be an issue is that you are looking at different categories. When we talk about our heritage, it looks very different in every part of the country. The people from County Galway are gone now, but it looks very different if you are in a capital city, surrounded by large, giant granite monuments and if you are in a part of the country where there is something of deep significant cultural interest, which may be one cottage like five other cottages, but that cottage may have cultural or historic significance to a community. I am worried about the archaeological filter screening off before those factors are considered in terms of historic, artistic and other categories, which are mentioned later in the Bill.

Regarding this amendment specifically, as I said, this is around the insertion of cultural value and recognition of cultural value within the Bill. I mentioned the guests who were in the Gallery. In their submission for pre-legislative scrutiny, Dr. Strecker and Ms Mercier noted the absence of cultural landscapes in the general scheme and remarked that both the Valletta Convention and the European Landscape Convention, to which Ireland is also a party, underscore the need for legal provision on cultural landscapes, which includes not just tangible monuments and the relevant things. Even the "thing" definition might be quite narrow in terms of that.It is also about the spaces between those things, the surrounding areas and the cultural landscape. It is about looking not just at the thing but the journey to the thing and the circle around it. There are objects, buildings and spaces the significance of which comes from how they are brought alive by cultural practice. It is about considering not just the four-wall version of archaeology we have but also the archaeological landscape. When I said something is missing from the Bill in reference to the Valletta Convention, I was referring to culture and cultural heritage. That aspect is not covered sufficiently by the language relating to the archaeological, historic or even artistic aspects that is included in the Bill. There is reference to the traditional aspect but that does not quite capture the issue to which I am referring.

Culture is intrinsic to our historic archaeological heritage, in both the physical and the intangible sense, which is where my amendment No. 6 is important. There are places where people go at a particular time of year for a particular reason and which are the locus for cultural manifestation. Something like that can have a really important significance. It is about which aspects of culture, history and archaeology are acknowledged. If we really narrow it down into the archaeological, we end up with the grand houses of Ireland and there is nothing of the time-of-year culture or what might be called patterned culture. My colleague Senator Flynn, whom I thank for seconding the amendments, will recall that when we looked at Traveller heritage and culture, much of it was in that space around skills, ways and the engagements people have with the landscape and spaces that are not necessarily marked by way of large things. That is the intangible culture. This may sound abstract but it is not abstract at all because there is a convention on it that sets out very clearly the importance of intangible culture. Ireland has supported that convention. I will speak presently about the significance, alongside the Valletta Convention, of the Aarhus Convention and the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.

There is a layer or set of concerns I wish to address by way of these amendments. Amendment No. 3 seeks to introduce the cultural aspect. It also introduces the linguistic aspect, which reflects that we live in a multilingual society. In regard to the Irish language, there is both tangible and intangible cultural heritage. The language is sometimes manifested physically in such things as Ogham. There is also heritage in the form of the sound recordings held by the Royal Irish Academy of different local Irish dialects. They need protection.

Amendment No. 4 is similar to amendment No. 3. It seeks to make clear that items of intangible cultural heritage would also be included as areas in respect of which the Minister may use his or her power to prescribe protection. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage defines intangible cultural heritage as follows:

[T]he practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills - as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith - communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.

This fits very well alongside the collective memory idea set out in the Valletta Convention and the notion of the continuity of identity based on cultural diversity and cultural practice.

Amendment No. 5 is a similar provision to amendment No. 3. It proposes the insertion of the relevant text into section 14(7) of the Bill. This subsection relates to the process by which the Minister forms an opinion in regard to a potential prescribed monument or relevant thing of a relevant interest. It sets out the matters to which the Minister may have regard in forming that opinion. They are quite wide-ranging, but the problem, as I outlined, is back in section 12, whereby everything is being squeezed through a narrow archaeological focus. Section 12 applies a narrow archaeological lens. It is a bit late in the Bill to be including some of these other factors, with the reference to "archaeological, architectural, artistic, historic or traditional interest". Even with those additions, the cultural aspect is missing again. Cultural is different from historic and traditional. I am trying to ensure the cultural consideration forms part of the matters the Minister is empowered to consider when making a designation. It is crucial to address this in section 12 and the Minister should also be empowered to consider it under the provisions of section 14.

Amendment No. 6 proposes to insert a new paragraph into subsection 14(7). It is about ensuring that when the Minister is forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (3), he or she will have regard to "the archaeological, architectural, artistic, historic, cultural, linguistic or traditional value of the monument or thing". It sounds like a small point but interest and value are slightly different things. In reference to archaeology and anthropology, "interest" is suggestive of the outward gaze. There is the idea of the scientist coming to have a look at and being interested in what certain people do and the things they use. It has an academic distance. Value is also really important. There are lots of people who may never have degrees or PhDs in archaeology and will not produce scientific theses. They do not need to have expertise or know about dating in order for something to have incredible value to them and to their family or community over generations.

This is a small change but one I urge the Minister of State to make to reflect the historic and cultural value of certain relevant things. If we go further into the intangible, it is not just about the things but also the places and practices associated with them. The value of those is very significant and goes beyond the tangible. I am reminded of something similar when we were discussing bogs. If we are only considering interest and not value, the argument can be made that if we have an example up in Cavan and another two in Mayo, we do not really need the slightly inferior example in Roscommon. We have a number of examples we can study. However, for people living in Roscommon, this is the place or thing that matters to their community. It has a value that is somewhat different from simply saying it is of interest. We are all familiar with the phrasing that something is of minor interest. I knew somebody once who was trying to do up a grand house of minor interest. Value is a different thing and that is why I would like it to be reflected in the Bill. Going back to the Valletta Convention, it is about making the Bill closer to that vision, including the collective memory aspect. There is reference to scientific and historic interest in the convention but the collective memory aspect comes first and it is a separate aspect, impetus and mandate to the historic, scientific and analytic functions.

I hope the Minister of State will be able to accept some of these amendments or reflect on them as the Bill goes forward.