I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Malcolm Noonan.
Historic and Archaeological Heritage Bill 2023: Second Stage
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am delighted to be here to present the Bill. I look forward to the debate and the deliberations of the House and I thank Senators for facilitating the second stage of this important Bill. Irish heritage is the foundation stone of our society. At an international level, our heritage provides us with a uniqueness and an identity that many states and societies hold in high regard. At a national level, it is a source of great pride and confers on us a sense of togetherness. In many ways, our heritage unites us and helps foster a sense of an Irish kinship. At a local level, perhaps the most important level of all, our heritage has created and maintained entire communities and it can provide individuals with a powerful feeling of belonging. This is why the laws protecting our heritage are so important and I support the need for legislative reform in this area that has long been acknowledged. The principal purpose of the Bill is to help protect and conserve our historic heritage so that the Irish people, and visitors to these shores, can continue to admire it and continue to learn from it. Elements of this Bill will also help realise a number of actions set out in heritage Ireland 2030, our national heritage plan.
As set out in Part 1, our historic heritage is a non-renewable resource of great cultural and scientific importance. It tells us the story of the development of our society; it inspires public understanding and teaches us to an appreciation of the past. The protection of historic heritage in its original location, or in situ, is always the preferred scenario. The Bill provides that there is a presumption in favour of this. It is also clear under the Bill that the responsibility for the protection of historic heritage is shared by all. It is through our past that we come to know ourselves and it is through how we mind and value that past that future generations come to know us.
Monuments and archaeological sites are among the most visual and significant examples of our historic heritage. Part 2 replaces the law on monuments as set out in the National Monuments Acts with comprehensively revised and strengthened provisions.
Monuments and archaeological sites are among the most visual and significant examples of our historic heritage. Part 2 of the Bill replaces the law on monuments as set out in the National Monuments Acts with comprehensively revised and strengthened provisions.
A core aim of Part 2, and a key innovation when compared with the existing law, is the protection of newly discovered finds of monuments. Regulations will be introduced that set out different classes of structures and sites that are of archaeological interest, and these will be known as "prescribed monuments". This approach will ensure that newly discovered archaeological sites are afforded immediate legal protection, mirroring the existing system for archaeological objects or historic wrecks that are automatically protected without a need for formal designation or registration.
For the first time, a statutory reporting scheme for finds of monuments of archaeological interest will be introduced. Where a person finds, or believes to have found, a prescribed monument, he or she will need to make a report to the Minister or a member of An Garda Síochána. A 72-hour time limit is provided for making preliminary reports, although alternative durations may be set out in regulations where appropriate. Once again, this will mirror the existing systems in place for finds of archaeological objects or historic wrecks.
A new "register of monuments" will be established, replacing several overlapping designation and registration systems currently in operation. In accordance with criteria set out in the Bill, entries can be made in the register if belonging to a class of prescribed monument or otherwise of heritage interest. Sites entered into the register will become known as "registered monuments".
The Bill provides extensive administrative procedures that must be followed when making, amending or deleting entries in the register. A statutory consultation process must take place by way of general notice in national newspapers or by direct contact with landowners, as appropriate. A written notice of the changes made to the register and the reasons for those changes must issue in a similar manner.
The Bill will apply a default level of legal protection to prescribed and registered monuments. This is a crucial point. This will mean that works to a monument cannot be carried out lawfully other than under and in accordance with a licence, or unless a valid notice of the works is submitted and a three-month notice period has elapsed. In addition, the Minister may impose certain conditions on the carrying out of any permitted works. A higher level of legal protection can be applied to a registered monument in order that the notice procedure is no longer available, and in such cases works can be carried out only under licence. Registered monuments in the ownership of the Minister or a local authority will be automatically subject to the higher level of protection. Where such monuments have been acquired under the enacted Bill, they will be known as "national monuments". There will be a duty to maintain and to facilitate access to national monuments. The OPW will discharge the day-to-day aspects of this duty on behalf of the Minister.
The Bill also provides for by-law-making powers that can be applied at national monuments. A new fixed payment notice system can be used to enforce by-laws, with corresponding powers to issue on-the-spot fines.
Part 3 of the Bill relates to the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention. For the first time, the term "world heritage property" will be introduced into Irish law under this Part.
The House might note that the provisions in the Bill relating to monuments are to complement, and not in any way to replace, the law relating to protected structures of architectural interest found under the Planning and Development Act and, indeed, the wider role of heritage protection in the planning system.
Part 4 relates to archaeological objects. It provides for State ownership of archaeological objects with no known owner and removes potential ambiguity found in the existing law by making it clear that owners of land on which archaeological objects are found are not counted as "known owners". Where the owner of an archaeological object is known, the State will be given the power to acquire the object on payment of appropriate compensation.
Objects falling within the definition of an "archaeological object" will be legally protected through a licensing requirement for their alteration, and all finds of archaeological objects must be reported to the National Museum of Ireland.
Part 4 also provides the necessary provisions to allow for the ratification of two important international treaties, the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. The ratification of these conventions would enable Ireland to play its part in the international effort to combat the illicit trade in, and the looting of, antiquities and cultural objects.
Under Part 5 of the Bill, provision is made for issues relating to the protection of historic wrecks and underwater cultural heritage - for example, the control of diving in relevant locations. The Bill enables the State to ratify the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, should the Government decide to do so. This convention contains obligations on the prevention of commercial exploitation, looting and trafficking, as well as promoting international co-operation and assistance.
Part 6 relates to other activities that will be subject to a licensing requirement, in particular archaeological excavation and the use of metal detectors to search for archaeological objects. Additional provisions ensure that a person cannot sell or supply a detection device unless a warning is clearly legible on the packaging, and a person will not be permitted to advertise the sale or use of a detection device to search for archaeological objects unless the advertisement is accompanied by the prescribed warning.
Part 7 will introduce an integrated licensing system whereby one licence can authorise a range of activities. For the first time, a statutory appeals process will be established with appeals officers appointed to review licensing decisions. This will help ensure administrative fairness and transparency in the regulatory process.
The formation and maintenance of inventories of heritage sites underpins effective heritage management, providing the data used to decide which sites are protected and to advise other bodies on the possible impacts of development on heritage.
Part 8 will provide for three statutory inventories - architectural heritage, archaeological sites and historic wrecks - and provide discretionary powers to create inventories of other categories of sites, including world heritage property. Provision is made such that information gathered in each of the inventories can be made publicly available.
Under Part 8 the Minister and other relevant bodies will be given powers to promote and publish research relating to historic heritage and to promote knowledge and awareness of monuments and archaeological heritage.
Under Part 9 of the Bill, provision is made for the Minister to issue guidelines for local authorities on how to deal with historic heritage in the exercise of their functions. The Minister, in conjunction with the Heritage Council, will be provided with a statutory function relating to the co-ordination and development of public policy on historic heritage. Public authorities and local authorities will be placed under a general obligation to have regard to historic heritage in the exercise of their functions.
Turning to Part 10, care has been taken to ensure that the penalties are reasonable, proportionate and in line with other Irish legislation. Severe penalties continue to be available for the most serious offences and in order to ensure that fairness defences to certain offences have been introduced where appropriate.
A major innovation will be the creation of a system of civil enforcement that can be used as an alternative to criminal proceedings under the Bill. Under this system, breaches of the Bill can be rectified by way of enforcement notices that will be enforceable by, or appealable to, the courts. This will greatly strengthen, in real terms, the scope for ensuring compliance with the legislation.
Finally, Parts 11 and 12 contain a range of miscellaneous technical provisions and consequential amendments to other existing Acts.
Our historic heritage is the motive force of our identity and our society. We are fortunate to enjoy a rich, layered and varied, and valued historic heritage in this country, and this legislation will help to ensure its protection for generations to come. I look forward to the debate in the House today and to hearing the contributions of Senators. The support that has been shown to date for the Bill at the Oireachtas joint committee is warmly welcomed. I commend the Bill to the House.
I welcome representatives of Friends of the Iveagh Markets, who are guests of Senator Seery Kearney. With us today are Lord Iveagh and others. They are very welcome to the debate.
I join you, a Chathaoirligh, in welcoming the guests to the Public Gallery. Their work is very important, and well done to them on it. I know they are working closely with Senator Seery Kearney. I wish them well.
I welcome the Minister of State and thank him and his officials. I have had some engagement with his officials on this Bill. I acknowledge the contribution of Senators Cummins, Fitzpatrick and Seery Kearney, who are also on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage and who did a lot of work on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.
The Minister of State is an excellent one. He is fiercely committed. He lives in a beautiful part of the world, Kilkenny, so he is very close to the natural and the built environment. However, he is the Minister of State today; he will not be the Minister of State for ever. We are working on primary legislation, which will be his legacy, we hope, but he will not always be here to oversee it. He will not be able to give it the passion, the drive and the commitment he has. We have to be mindful of that when we draft primary legislation to ensure that it is robust enough, has longevity and sets out to do what it is meant to do, which is to protect our historic and archaeological heritage, which this Bill seeks to do.
As I said this morning on the Order of Business, I want to acknowledge the Minister of State’s commitment and close collaboration and work with the Heritage Council and the launch of the strategy that I attended this morning. It was great he launched it. I want to also acknowledge the work of Dr. Martina Moloney and, of course, Virginia Teehan, the chief executive officer. That was important. The report is entitled Our Place in Time. I mention that because all our heritage is interrelated and interconnected with our archaeology. It is important that we acknowledge that our national historic and archaeological heritage is a vital part of who we are. It supports our identity and sense of belonging. That is why it is so important and it must be valued, cared for and open for all to enjoy.
I liked the quote this morning. As I was coming in here to talk about the Bill, I thought that I would quote it yet again. In the preface to Our Place in Time, there is a lovely piece from President Michael D. Higgins to mark the 20th anniversary of the Heritage Council. The Heritage Council is very much embedded in this legislation. It was apt and worth saying again. It is in the preface of the report launched this morning. He said: "When we speak of heritage today, we are talking about [the] interaction with the world around us, both real and abstract, our identity and our need to tell our own story in our own way." That is what Michael D. Higgins said some years ago. Again, the Heritage Council used it and it was very apt. That is only one piece of the paragraph.
It is important that we talk about leadership and stewardship. It is important we talk also in the context of biodiversity and climate all interacting - research, partnership, communities, public engagement and the safety of archaeology going forward. That is important.
I want to support this legislation but there are one or two issues that need some engagement that I want to first address. First, I thank the library and research team for an extensive digest on this Bill. It assists us and I acknowledge their critical work in the Parliament in helping us to navigate and understand legislation in a fine grain and in finer detail. There were nine pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations to this report, two of which raised concern and have been flagged by library and research service. One is the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendation No. 2, that the Bill provide an automatic entry into the planning authority’s record to protect the structures and those prescribed. Of course, the Minister of State’s Department is not suggesting that be included. Some of us would be familiar with a county development plan. I took my own county development plan in the county I live in, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, to see that all these sites are marked on the plan. They are marked on the maps. They are included in the inventory next to the record of protected structures. It was rightly pointed out that they are not protected structures. However, it is significant. What is a city and county development plan? It is a contract with the people. It is a written as well as a map-form document that sets out the future planning for the life of a development plan, possibly now to be ten years if the other legislation is approved. Therefore, it is important that it is a port of call or a point where the public would look at it and see what they could legitimately expect. What is around them and what are the limitations if they are acquiring land for agriculture or they want to develop something? It might be said it is repetition. I would rather have something repeated. However, to suggest that it is not relevant and unnecessary begs the question “Why?”.
I am familiar with the Carrickmines Castle. I want to flag that as well. There are many lessons to learn from Carrickmines Castle, the place that was a result of many judicial reviews and High Court actions. Many people were vindicated in all of that fight with the Government. Where is all the archaeology? Where is it all going? Look at the reports of what was promised. Séamus Brennan was Minister at one point with responsibility for roads and transport. The stuff is stuck in boxes all over the place. None of it is being put on exhibition, no one has a definitive list of it and no one knows anything about it. However, that is for another day.
There is a lesson from Carrickmines Castle out in Carrickmines at the junction in South County Dublin. It is a great, historic site, yet none if it is to be seen except part of the M50. We have lessons to learn. We made many promises and we did not deliver. We should have it marked on the county development plans. They are local, people understand them, they go to their planning office and they can see them. It may be a repetition of what the Minister of State is proposing, but let us be sure and have it in two places.
On the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendation No. 6, the proposed Bill provides for things of cultural interest. That is a concern and there are issues around that. I would like to draw the Minister of State’s attention to the Faro Convention. I do not want to sound too intelligent because I knew nothing about the Faro Convention until I was at the gathering this morning at the Heritage Council. A distinguished archaeologist who was invited to the event and asked me if I had looked at the Faro Convention. I said that I knew nothing about it but I take it is Faro in Portugal. He told me it deals with a lot of our cultural heritage and advised me to take a look at that. I am only flagging that. I know nothing more about it. However, it ties in with concerns on pre-legislative scrutiny recommendation No. 6.
I wish to quickly raise other issues. There is too much power going to the Minister. While the Minister of State is an excellent Minister and is fully committed, the Minister may consult - broadly through this document – through the vehicle of the Heritage Council. It only has to have regard to it. It can reject every bit of what the Heritage Council advises. Another Minister could come in, do a consultation and if he or she is not happy, decide to move on because of the national development plan. That is the balance. We need national progress and infrastructure, but we also need to look after archaeology. I am concerned about that.
I am particularly concerned about the Valletta Convention. Initially, it was not in the Bill. We made a very strong case and eventually it was put in or partially put into the Bill. We thought that it would be more than just a wink and a nod at the Valletta Convention, which is the European convention on the protection of archaeological sites, and it would be deeply embedded in the legislation.
I will leave it at that. I have concerns about those issues. I want to flag that I have already worked on some amendments. I will hopefully table them in the morning, so there will be adequate notice. I am happy to talk to the Minister of State’s officials in advance. I worked on the amendments. I think they are just those areas. If they are all ironed out, I am happy to support this legislation.
Comhghairdeas on bringing this piece of legislation to the House today on Second Stage. With my colleagues, I look forward to supporting the legislation. It is an important piece of work. It was my privilege, along with Senators Boyhan, Cummins, Seery Kearney and others, to do the pre-legislative scrutiny in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It is important legislation. We learned that when you do great things, your legacy remains after you. In doing this, the Minister of State is doing a great thing. This will be an important part of his legacy and I congratulate him on that. We are all just passing through and we should use our time as productively and valuably as possible.
Heritage is the gift that keeps on giving. It has intellectual, cultural, educational, social and economic value to us. Our heritage is who we are. It informs who we are and it is what makes us unique. This legislation is an important response from the State. It is an assertion, let us say, from the State of the value the State will place on heritage. The legislation and the enshrining of the value of heritage in it creates a link between the past and the present and, ideally, a bridge into the future. It helps us understand where we come from and how we got to where we are today. Hopefully, those experiences, learnings and failures will inform how we move forward in the future. It helps to create a sense of identity and a sense of belonging. It is our opportunity to pass on to future generations all of our learnings from our success and failures.
Once heritage is destroyed, that is it. It is gone forever. That is why it is important that the Bill is effective, fit for purpose and will lead us into the future. This legislation has been far too long in coming. Back in 2001, the Heritage Council indicated that more than 30% of the State’s archaeological monuments had been destroyed since 1840. That is a terrible legacy and track record. I appreciate this legislation aims to, in part, ensure that that type of vandalism and destruction is not repeated into the future.
Heritage provides a tangible connection to the stories, experience and achievements of our ancestors.
We all have our own personal heritage. Mine stems from poor small farmers; the Famine in Mayo; railway people under the British empire; revolution; Fianna Fáil; the founding of the State; my own emigration; the tech sector; and a modern Ireland. It is our country's heritage. Dublin Central, where I live, and the rest of the world is constantly changing but we can all learn from the past. That is why it is critically important that the State takes a lead in protecting our heritage, including the high-profile heritage sites in Ireland, such as Newgrange, the Cliffs of Moher, the passage tomb at Dowth, and Brú na Bóinne, a place I visited recently. In my constituency, there is the Phoenix Park, the GPO, the Royal Canal - some of these places I take for granted everyday - O'Connell Street and Moore Street. I cannot let today go by without talking about Moore Street. I acknowledge those from the Iveagh Markets. I have had my battle on the north side for the fruit and vegetable market for a long time. I feel their pain. I agree with and support Senator Seery Kearney, who is working incredibly hard to ensure the heritage of the Iveagh Markets is protected, promoted and sustained into the future. I am sure the Senator will be more than able to eloquently speak to that.
I acknowledge the Bill will provide for the integrated licensing system, the statutory codes of practice, other legal protections that will be conferred and new fines. All of that is really welcome. The fact that it will replace legislation from 1930 speaks for itself. It will allow the State to ratify international conventions and bring our legislation up to date in areas of heritage protection. All of this is important. The new register of monuments is very welcome as is the fact that the Bill provides for the State's right of ownership of archaeological objects where there is no owner found. That is really welcome.
I cannot finish without mentioning Moore Street and the national monument of 14-17 Moore Street. That site is the birthplace of our Republic. I know the Minister of State is familiar with this site because I have haunted him about it, for which I apologise, but I will not give up. The people of Moore Street, the traders will not give up. I do not believe the Irish people will give up until they see a proper 1916 commemorative centre at 14-17 Moore Street. It is long overdue. There is a fantastic proposal there. Since the Minister of State took up office, he has put energy behind it. The report of the ministerial advisory group, on which I was honoured to serve, was endorsed and broadly welcomed. It contains a high-value proposal for a quality, State-run 1916 commemorative site. I hope the Minister of State will, before he concludes this debate, be able to update the House on when we will see works commence at the national monument of 14-17 Moore Street. When we do great things, our legacy remains after us. The Minister of State has the opportunity to do a great deed. He is doing great work with this legislation. We will be supporting it through the next Stages and we want to see it enacted promptly. I also want him to reach beyond the legislation and into the day-to-day operations and protection of our heritage, particularly the national monument on Moore Street.
The next speaker is Senator John Cummins. He is taking five minutes and giving three minutes to his colleague. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Minister of State for commencing this legislation in the Seanad. It is always a positive step to initiate legislation in Seanad Éireann. This House affords the breathing space and room for the debate to thoroughly examine this legislation, as was the case with the Oireachtas joint committee, on which I sit.
As the Minister of State outlined in his opening statement, the Bill is an important milestone. It seeks to modernise our historic and archaeological heritage legislation. It provides for a single, integrated licensing system and statutory codes of practice. It also confers legal protections on new finds of archaeological sites. It also provides for the State to be able to ratify some key international conventions. The Act of 1930 has served the State well but over time, it has been significantly amended. As a result, some conflicts exist in the legislation. It is a major body of work; the Bill includes 12 parts and over 240 pages. I commend the Minister of State and his officials for the significant work that has gone into modernising this legislation.
As Senator Fitzpatrick mentioned, our heritage is part of who we are. I consider myself very fortunate to come from Waterford, the oldest city in Ireland, the birth place of our Tricolour, which we will be celebrating in the company of the Taoiseach in two weeks' time. When Thomas Francis Meagher was unveiling the Tricolour in 1848 he said, "The white in the centre signifies a lasting truce between [the Irish Protestant] and [the Irish Catholic] and I trust that beneath its folds the hands of Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics may be clasped in ... heroic brotherhood." This statement is as relevant today as it was when it was said in 1848.
The Minister of State has visited many sites. We in Waterford are only a short drive away from him in Kilkenny. He has seen first-hand the magnificent work carried out by Waterford City and County Council and the OPW in renovating and upgrading the Viking Triangle. We also have the Medieval Museum; the Bishop's Palace museum; the Irish Museum of Time, which the Minister of State opened last year; and the Irish Silver Museum, which is housed in the Deanery building. The latest project for which the Department has provided funding is the Museum of the Irish Wake, which will be housed in one of the oldest building in Ireland having been carefully restored. That rich heritage and culture is something we all value. Everyone has examples of sites in their own areas that they are immensely proud of. Funding for the restoration for historic buildings is vitally important. We need to see significantly more resources going into that area. I know this is something the Minister of State is committed to.
I refer to the draft planning and development Bill 2022, which Senator Boyhan mentioned earlier. It is another significant Bill running to nearly 800 pages in length. The Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage is doing pre-legislative scrutiny on it at the moment and there is a piece on the record of protected structures. The Bill will allow for additions and deletions at any point, which is something I really welcome. During pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill yesterday, I referred to section 257 that allows for works to be carried out on a protected structure. Generally, one is looking for a determination by a local authority to allow for such works to take place. They are typically minor works. The difficulty is that a period of 12 weeks is provided for in the legislation and the advantage of taking that route is negated. People generally make the decision to go for a full planning application, which clogs up the planning process.
We need to look at a revised timeframe. I ask the Minister of State to take that back to the Department in the context of the other Bill. It is related and relevant so I had to cite it here.
I also welcome those who are here from the Iveagh Markets. I remember the markets very fondly as a kid when it used to sell second-hand clothes and I was able to get my velvet suit jackets and my Farah trousers there. I wholeheartedly support its preservation. Sinn Féin welcomes this Bill. As is very clear, the existing legislation which dates back to 1930 is not fit for purpose and needs modernising. I hope the Bill will address many of the issues facing our archaeological and historical heritage. Ireland markets itself on its heritage and landscape and yet the reality is that we actually have a very poor record of preserving both our built and natural environment. We only have to look at what happened to the O'Rahilly house that was demolished by greedy developers with scant regard for the historical significance of the building and the lack of any recourse in that matter. During the 1970s, we bulldozed the unique Viking remains at Wood Quay. Sinn Féin hopes that this Bill will put a stop to that wanton destruction and, in particular, will put an end to the horrendous plans to turn the hallowed ground of the 1916 Rising on Moore Street into a shopping centre. I sincerely hope this Bill will protect the battle sites so that the vision put forward by relatives and historians for the cultural quarter, as set out by my colleague Deputy Ó Snodaigh in his Bill, can be realised.
Section 2 clarifies that a reference to certain things such as archaeological objects, buildings and monuments includes a reference to a part of that thing. Will the Minister of State clarify if this could be expanded to also incorporate the integrity of a monument within its surrounding context? Again, this is of particular importance in places like Moore Street where only certain buildings in the old terrace are protected while others are not. This allows for the effective destruction of most of the terrace and therefore destroys its coherency and removes the site from its historic setting. A few lone buildings surrounded by a tasteless modern behemoth of a shopping centre would not do justice to that historic monument.
In 2014, I went to the Council of Europe and met with the secretary general of architectural heritage at that time to raise the issue of Moore Street and what the plans were. She was appalled and the Irish ambassador at the time refused to meet with myself and the secretary general. The secretary general was appalled that a country would demolish its most important battle site in its history. At the time, she compared it to other cases and pointed out how other European countries were actually rebuilding battle sites from rubble, such was the value they attached to their heritage. I am sure if I went to see her today she would be similarly appalled by plans to open a hotel on the side of the Rock of Cashel. She flagged the Faro Convention at the time so I echo the calls from Senator Boyhan that it is important that Ireland signs up and ratifies that treaty. As I said, I hope the Bill will incorporate the context of a monument in order to prevent such developments as those we are seeing on Moore Street and at the Rock of Cashel.
Section 4 of the Bill sets out the territorial extent of the Bill's application. I believe we also need a discussion on how to protect the historic and archaeological heritage of Ireland that is now elsewhere; whether that is as a result of colonial plunder or unethical means. We all heard recently, after more than two centuries of being displayed in a museum against his expressed dying wish, that the remains of Charles O’Brien are now no longer on display in the Hunterian Museum in London. Likewise, housed at Oxford University’s Bodleian Library are the Annals of Inisfallen, which is a manuscript written in Irish and Latin on 57 folios of vellum, begun in 1092 and describing events from as early as the 5th century. We need to have provision for the repatriation of our heritage and I would like to hear the Minister of State's views on that.
I would also like to hear from the Minister of State as to the rationale behind section 12 not allowing for elected members of local authorities to prescribe monuments. I point again to the O'Rahilly house, the structure of which Dublin City Council unanimously voted to protect but was ignored.
I use my final time to raise something I know the Minister of State is aware of but to which I have been trying to get answers over the past year; that is what happened in Emo Court. We are here today to give greater powers of protection for our built heritage and that is, of course, welcome. We have an Office of Public Works, OPW, that has the responsibility to manage our built heritage and monuments yet it seems to take a cavalier attitude to the law. How can we have faith in the OPW to do its job and protect our heritage when we have it in black and white that it chose to absolutely disregard the law at Emo Court? It carried out works there without a derogation licence, and in so doing, disturbed an annex 4 species of long-eared bat under the habitats directive. It was told by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to cease the works and chose to ignore that letter and carried on the works. Then we have a situation that when this was investigated by a National Parks and Wildlife Service ranger and a recommendation in that report was for prosecution of the OPW for breaches of regulations under the habitats directive, somebody somewhere made a decision to not implement these same recommendations. We know now from another freedom of information request that the bats have not returned to Emo Court so not only did the OPW disturb the bats, which is enough to warrant prosecution under the habitats directive, but it destroyed that roost. Those responsible suffered no consequences. This Bill is important and it is welcome. If the OPW, which is responsible for the built heritage, can decide it can pick and choose which heritage laws apply to it, and if the Minister can then turn a blind eye to that, what assurances do we have that this legislation will make a blind bit of difference to preserving our heritage? It really is important that the OPW, the Department and the State set the example so that when developers are watching on, they can see that we are not just seen to implement the law but also to uphold the law. I have serious concerns about the OPW and its scant disregard in circumstances when it chooses to ignore the law it has responsibility for upholding.
I did not need to wear a hat to get my surname said correctly. I thank the Chair.
I thank the Minister of State for this legislation and for all the work he has done. I will come back to that in a moment but first, I particularly welcome the guests in the Gallery today. I begin by welcoming Lord Iveagh, Ned, and also the friends of the Iveagh Markets: David Delaney; Noel Fleming of Noel's Deli fame on Meath Street, which is really good for jammy dodgers as well as ice cream; James Madigan, Kim Olin and Kieran Doyle O'Brien; and also my own husband David Kearney, who was christened in the Church of St. Nicholas of Myra on Francis Street and whose family hail from Francis Street and had a stall in the market.
I begin by briefly alluding to the cromlech in Chapelizod. I thank the Minister of State for the forward and backward engagement we have had for at least the last 18 months on that. At that time, I was representing the requirements of Peter Kavanagh and the Chapelizod Heritage Society who asked for fencing to protect the cromlech. There is fencing around it today but we could not put it up until letters were written and a discussion was had as to the impact fencing would have. Now there is fencing up around it but the fencing is there is to protect the cromlech after it had been damaged. We exchanged late-night texts on a Friday night and to be fair, the response was extraordinary from the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell. I am very grateful for his accessibility on that. However, it was after the fact that we moved to protect a monument and proof of ancient living in Chapelizod which the people of Ireland deserved to see preserved. It is with that in mind, and the experience of that situation in mind, that I want to particularly address the Iveagh Markets.
I note the extraordinary intervention and grace of the Guinness family and the first Earl of Iveagh to grant Dublin and to the people of the Liberties, St. Patrick's Park and in the Iveagh Trust and all of the housing that is there. I am from a brewery family so all of my family worked in Guinness's. We knew people who lived in Iveagh Gardens. There was an extraordinary investment into the people of Dublin. As part of that, because of the markets that were there, the Earl of Iveagh built the Iveagh Markets as a gift to the people in the Liberties to have their market and to continue their market under the stewardship of Dublin Corporation. It should have remained thus. It has been over 30 years now without any activity in it. Dublin City Council or Dublin Corporation in their wisdom, allowed an arrangement of tendering for a 500 year lease, to a potential developer who did nothing except to criminally undermine the structure of that facility. There are elements of it that are inexplicably gone. There are trenches in it that completely undermine it, and it is just about standing there. It is extraordinary that it has survived the winter, and thankfully it has. However, I do not know how many more winters it will cover. I know that there are actions going on, but my fear is we are going to get caught up now in a report and another report and another report. In the meantime, until the day comes that it has collapsed all together, then there will be a lot of hand wringing and wailing about what is lost. The people of the Liberties deserve their market. I have been to the market in Barcelona. We have the English market in Cork. Other the markets are preserved. They are beautifully living, breathing spaces for the community in which they are situated, for the city and country in which they find themselves. The heritage and history of that is preserved and held and it is a living space. There is no reason why the Iveagh Markets could not be exactly the same in what is an extraordinary part of our city. The Liberties stands for everything that embodies the spirit us Dubliners, it really does. It is an absolute disgrace that it is standing there so neglected and I am very grateful to Lord Iveagh for the moves that he took to stimulate a final response in all of this two years ago by taking control and reminding Dublin Corporation and its successor in Dublin City Council, that there is a covenant there. The market is for the people of Dublin, under their stewardship. What are they doing? What have they done? I am mindful of litigation and all of the rest that is going on but I will not address that. The fact is that they, as local authorities, are the front line guardians of our heritage in the area over which they preside. They have presided over a disgrace since that market closed its doors. It is an absolute disgrace. To walk around it is the stuff of tears. There have been reports on it that is currently unsafe. I am very grateful to Mr. Guinness who brought many of us public representatives around around the market. He was very good and he did no oblige us to wear hard hats. We probably were lucky.
I note the extraordinary intervention and grace of the Guinness family and the first Earl of Iveagh to grant Dublin and the people of the Liberties, St. Patrick's Park and the Iveagh Trust and all of the housing that is there. I am from a brewery family. All of my family worked in Guinness's. We knew people who lived in Iveagh Gardens. There was an extraordinary investment in the people of Dublin. As part of that, because of the markets that were there, the Earl of Iveagh built the market as a gift to the people in the Liberties to have their market and to continue it under the stewardship of Dublin Corporation. It should have remained thus.
It has been over 30 years now without any activity in it. Dublin City Council or Dublin Corporation in their wisdom, allowed an arrangement of tendering for a 500-year lease to a potential developer who did nothing except to criminally undermine the structure of the facility. There are elements of it that are inexplicably gone. There are trenches in it that completely undermine it and it is just about standing. It is extraordinary that it has survived the winter. Thankfully it has but I do not know how many more winters it will withstand.
I know that there are actions going on but my fear is that we will get caught up in endless reports until the day comes that it collapses and then there will be much hand wringing and wailing about what has been lost. The people of the Liberties deserve their market. Other markets are preserved. That is what would happen in any other city. Barcelona is a fine example of this. We have the example of the English Market in Cork. They are beautifully living, breathing spaces for their communities, cities and countries. The heritage and history is preserved and held in a living space.
There is no reason the Iveagh Markets could not be exactly the same. It is an extraordinary part of our city. The Liberties stands for everything that embodies the spirit of us Dubliners, it really does. It is an absolute disgrace that it is standing there so neglected. I am very grateful to Lord Iveagh for the moves that he made to stimulate a final response in all of this two years ago in taking control and reminding Dublin Corporation and its successor, Dublin City Council, that there is a covenant there. That is for the people of Dublin under their stewardship. So what are they doing? What have they done?
I am mindful of litigation and all of the rest that is going on and I will not address that. The fact is that they, as local authorities, are the front line guardians of our heritage in the area over which they preside. They have presided over a disgrace since that market closed its doors. It is an absolute disgrace. To walk around it is the stuff of tears. There have been reports carried out which state that the building is currently unsafe.
I am very grateful to Mr. Guinness who brought many of us public representatives around the market. He was very good, not obliging us to wear hard hats. We were probably lucky. The building is in an advanced state of dereliction. It does not take an awful lot of imagination to picture what could be and we have a really good example. The Friends of the Iveagh Markets have brought me through the experience of Kilmainham Mill where there was engagement with the local community. Where are we at with that project? We are at a very advanced stage of an extraordinary preservation of heritage, of the story of a community, the story of generations. That is what we need in the Iveagh Markets.
I know the Minister of State has visited and done work and engaged with the issue. I implore the Minister of State either under this Bill, or in some other way, to oblige urgent action. It is not okay for Dublin City Council to commission a report that will take forever. In the meantime the building will be gone and a piece of Dublin and a piece of Ireland will be gone that we do not deserve to lose. It cannot be only in the mind's eye. Among those in the Gallery are people who conduct guided tours of the Liberties and capture the most extraordinary history of our State. One cannot move an inch in the place without feeling the history of the people. Visitors, the local community and the Irish people need to be able to proudly walk into the Iveagh Markets. That is the legacy of the Guinness family and their investment in employment and housing, and in everything they have done for the city of Dublin. That is the legacy. We as a people when it was gifted to us, we who preside over the governance of our State, have an obligation to respond to that wholeheartedly in everything that is encapsulated in this Bill.
I am very glad we are having this debate. I want to welcome the Minister of State. I can say from the bottom of my heart that he has a huge interest in our heritage, history and archaeological finds. We have a very proud record in County Roscommon of a lot of heritage and a lot of buildings. I am sure the Minister of State is well aware of Rathcroghan which is one of the best sites in Europe but virtually unknown. It could probably become a UNESCO site. We are very proud of that. In the village of Tulsk, close to Rathcroghan, we have an interpretative centre. I want to pay tribute to the local people and local farmers in an agricultural area who have been so understanding through the years.
It needs to be said here that the people of Ireland are very proud of their heritage and their archaeology. They do not like to see it destroyed or tampered with. In that regard, we should be putting a much stronger emphasis on this type of material in our schools, even our national schools. I must acknowledge the role of teachers, because they do a lot regarding local archaeology and local heritage in bringing children to sites.
I am very lucky. I come from near Strokestown where we have the National Famine Museum, which is now renowned not alone in Ireland, but throughout Europe. It brings between 50,000 and 60,000 visitors to that town. It illustrates the whole story of the Famine and the suffering of the people. People now come on the Famine walk from Strokestown to Dublin and can see the Famine sculptures on the docks. They are a reminder to us all of what people went through.
The people of our town, despite the unpleasant memories, are very proud that a local businessman, Mr. Jim Callery, who was the first man to bring Scania trucks into Ireland, purchased the site years ago and got help from the Scania company. We are now really so thankful that he did so. The State has been giving good support to Strokestown Park House. I would encourage everybody, those in the Gallery and those in the Chamber to come. We were to organise a visit for our Senators and we will do that in time. That is all part of what we are.
No country in the world has anything if it does not have its heritage and archaeology. It is so important in defining people and in what we are. Moore Street means an awful lot to the people of rural Ireland. They loved going to Moore Street and they would love to see it being properly looked after. It was a national treasure for Irish people and I remember as a young lad being brought there by my parents. I loved going there, listening to the local people who were part of it. I would be very passionate about places like that even though I am a culchie.
What we are doing here is very important and I thank the Minister of State for bringing the Bill forward. I looked through many of the other listings of important places in my own county of Roscommon and the adjoining county of Galway, and part of that I would know. For example, in Roscommon town, Loughnaneane Park and the O'Connor Dunne family. We have Ballintubber Abbey. Now do not go astray here. We are not talking about Ballintubber Abbey in Mayo. We are talking about Ballintubber Abbey in County Roscommon. There is a local committee doing fabulous work on it.
We also have the Castlestrange stone, the Drummin fort and Holy Trinity Abbey in Lough Key. There is a great deal of heritage in Lough Key Forest Park, which is located near Boyle in County Roscommon. It is fantastic, as many Members know. I have mentioned Rathcroghan Visitor Centre. There is also Rinn Dúin Castle in south Roscommon and Leecarrow. There is a huge amount of history there, which I do not have time to relate today. We also have Roscommon Abbey in Roscommon town. These are but a few of the aspects of our beautiful and rich heritage in County Roscommon.
The same is true of County Galway. I was talking on the telephone today to a woman who contacted me about Eglish Abbey in Ahascragh near Galway city. It is a fantastic historical place. An issue this woman raised is one that is a problem for a lot of our national monuments, namely, the inadequate road structure around them. I hope the Bill will include provision for improving some of that road infrastructure, which is terrible. When people want to go these sites and find out about their history, they are blocked by roads that are flooded or that have not been developed. It would be helpful if local authorities would liaise with the Minister of State on this issue. There is a lot of money available currently for active travel initiatives. We should be able to find the funding to improve the short roadways into these sites. I am not talking about people going onto the sites and doing damage. It is about enabling visitors to have a look, read the plaques and find out about the sites. That is something we need to do.
This is a good day and we have had a great and important debate. Across the House, we see the importance of this issue. We are all very careful about our heritage and we want it looked after and minded. As I said, we have nothing if we do not have our heritage and culture.
I assure the Senator that there is nothing wrong with being a culchie any day of the week.
I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate all involved in bringing forward this Bill. Having served for some time as Minister of State at the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, I know the Bill has been some time in the making. There was a unique scenario whereby it went through pre-legislative scrutiny when much of its content had already been written, although there may subsequently have been changes to it. The legislation was known as the monuments and archaeological heritage Bill in its earlier incarnations. It is not unusual for the Title of a Bill to change but I wonder why the word "monuments" was removed. The Bill is a natural successor to the National Monuments Act 1930. Will the Minister of State consider changing the Title to include the word "monuments", which would provide continuity with the previous legislation?
I have some concerns regarding the language used in the Bill, particularly in sections 12 and 13. There is reference to a "relevant thing", "a class of relevant things", "the date and time when he or she found the thing concerned" and "the circumstances in which he or she found the thing". I find that a strange usage of the English language. Is it possible to find a better word than "thing", such as "item" or "object"? I do not know whether the usage of "thing" perhaps follows through from international archaeological terminology. It seems a strange wording to use.
Section 18 relates to the promotion of public awareness of a register of monuments. There is an issue I have raised before, including with officials, not specifically in reference to this section but more generally. When land is sold, there should be a practice whereby an auctioneer is required to advise the new purchaser that a monument has been found on the land the individual has bought. Some of these monuments may be quite innocuous and could be described as landscape features. Some of them may be overgrown. While people are waiting for registration of title of deed and all that goes with it, damage could be done to a monument of which they are not aware. Unfortunately, one of the first things a new owner might do is send an individual out with a machine to do some clearing, as per the terminology used down the country. Whether or not they have planning permission to do that, it is often what happens. It would be a shame if monuments were lost in circumstances whereby people genuinely are not aware there is something there because they have just bought the land. We should make provision in the Bill such that when people go sale agreed at an auction or whatever, there would be an onus on the auctioneer to ensure information is provided to the new owner. Such a precautionary measure might help to protect monuments.
Unfortunately, there is sometimes a requirement that capital works take place. They might include road projects, for example, to which the Minister of State might not be agreeable in general. There is sometimes disruption to archaeological sites or the need for an archaeological dig. In my own area, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, has produced a wonderful document called A Moycullen Miscellany. It was written by Jerry O'Sullivan and his team and details the history, architecture and archaeology of the N59 Moycullen bypass, which should be open in August or September. It gives an in-depth history of the area, including its historical features and monuments and any archaeological finds. The people involved went out and launched it in the community and locals were interested in what they had to say. Where archaeological digs and excavations are required as part of a capital road project, that type of information should be published and presented to people within the community who are interested in it. It was a nice touch to do that in the case of Moycullen. As I said, there is a need for capital projects at times and they can have an impact. There have been debates in the past on other projects. Where there is a requirement for projects and they go through the phases of planning and so on, it is right that there should be a record of any finds and that such record would be presented to the local community.
I thank Senators for their valuable contributions. I will try to get through all the points raised in the time available to me.
I thank Senator Boyhan for his positive comments on the Bill. I acknowledge his presence this morning at the launch of the Heritage Council's strategic plan. It certainly was a positive event and there is no doubt the council has been a great custodian and promoter of our heritage. The plan will set it in good place to continue that work. We have increased the funding for the Heritage Council over the past few years to help it to realise its ambition. That is critically important.
Regarding the Senator's comments on the pre-legislative scrutiny process, we support the incorporation of the registration of monuments into development plans. The proposed amendment to the Planning and Development Act 2000 will ensure that happens. Local authority development plans and maps are the responsibility of individual councils, as the Senator is aware. It could be problematic to require all registered monuments to be included in the record of protected structures, with the associated obligation to maintain them. I note the point the Senator made in regard to Carrickmines Castle and the Faro Convention. He also mentioned the Valletta Convention. The provisions in this Bill and the changes to the planning law will see us fully implement that convention.
Senator Fitzpatrick raised her specialist subject, which is Moore Street in Dublin city. I thank her for her continued support for the development of the street. Senator Boyhan has likewise raised the issue of the buildings at Nos. 14 to 16 Moore Street. It is critically important that we move forward with the plans. My Department is providing €12.7 million in funding for the interpretation stage. Senator Fitzpatrick asks me consistently for updates. We are close to moving towards the design and interpretation stage. The site will remain a national monument under the new legislation, with clear duties on the Minister to maintain national monuments in his or her ownership.
Unfortunately, there is sometimes a requirement that capital works take place, whether road projects - the Minister of State might not be agreeable to them - interruption with archaeological sites or the need for an archaeological dig. put on record the wonderful publication the team in Transport Infrastructure Ireland produced in respect of my area of Moycullen, a lovely document called Moycullen Miscellany. Gerry O'Sullivan and the t
I am seeking to give reassurance in that regard. It is painstakingly slow but Senators can rest assured that we are working in partnership with the OPW to ensure we move on site there to begin the interpretation, which will be incredibly exciting, for the redevelopment of Moore Street and the wider O’Connell Street area. As a fellow culchie who has moved up to Dublin in recent years, I love Dublin’s heritage. I know the community from Iveagh Markets is present. I love walking around Dublin in the evenings and getting to appreciate the heritage that is here. I recognise how important it is to protect, conserve and restore that heritage.
Senator Cummins raised the issue of funding. We have a community monuments fund. This has been raised on a number of queries regarding specific projects. We have ramped up that fund from €600,000 in 2020 to €6 million this year and we are expecting a barrage of applications to it. It is an amazingly positive fund that has been hugely oversubscribed and we are looking forward to the applications coming in. I reassure the Senator that the Bill will work alongside planning law but will not replace it. I note the points he made in respect of section 257 of the draft planning and development Bill 2022, which is currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny before the housing committee.
Senator Boylan raised a couple of issues relating to Moore Street and its surrounding area. Section 14 of the Bill provides that the area around a monument may be specified and protected if so doing secures the protection of the monument. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects sets out the rules in respect of the repatriation or return of stolen cultural objects. That convention will be adhered to in the Bill. The role of the OPW is detailed in the Bill. The Senator has raised the issue of Emo Court with me on several occasions. It is not relevant to the Bill but if she wishes to table a Commencement matter on the issue, I will be happy to respond.
I thank Senator Seery Kearney for her contribution. In particular, she referred to her community in Chapelizod and her involvement in the Iveagh Markets. It was fantastic to meet Lord Iveagh and the community outside the gates of Leinster House. I met with Owen Keegan before Christmas. There are ongoing conversations and we are moving in a positive direction. There are complexities in the matter and they are different from those relating to Kilmainham Mill, which I am delighted to see progress. I visited it last year with Owen Keegan and others. I am hopeful that we can make good progress. That is all I will say on the matter.
I thank Senator Murphy for his contribution, particularly in respect of Roscommon. I will be up in the county on Saturday and hope to see him there. He raised important points in respect of education and awareness. There are provisions within the Bill for research, promotion, knowledge and awareness of our historic heritage. It is important to note that incredible work is being done by educators throughout the country. I say that in light of the launch this morning of the strategic plan for the Heritage Council. It is happening in schools, at primary and secondary levels. I was in Knockbeg College and heard about the work the school is doing in respect of its heritage. There is the heritage in schools scheme and we are rolling out biodiversity officers. There is a significant amount of incredible work going on. The provisions in the Bill will help in that research and promotion element. I thank the Senator for his invitation to view some of the projects, although I will not get to them this week as I am due to visit a specific project in Roscommon.
On the point raised by Senator Kyne regarding the removal of word "monuments" from the Title of the Bill, that was done to try to reflect the broad scope of the Bill. The usage of the word "monuments" would have meant too narrow a definition. I note the point he makes, however. The terminology in the Bill, such as "relevant thing", is a result of legislative drafting and relates to codes of practice and guidelines. We will use much more common terminology when we get down to codes of practice and guidelines once the Bill is enacted. The usage of the phrase "relevant thing" is an oddity but it tries to encapsulate a much broader interpretation. Section 46 of the Bill provides for monuments to be registered as a burden affecting land. In the context of development works, the Department will work with the Property Registration Authority in terms of notification. The Senator makes a valid point in that regard.
I again thank all Senators for their important contributions. It is an important Bill. It revises and replaces the existing law in this area, which was forward-looking in its day but is now almost 100 years old. The Bill introduces a range of innovative measures and significantly advances the mechanisms and systems we use to protect our historic and archaeological heritage. It will bring clarity to ambiguous terminology and stabilise the legislative foundation upon which the maintenance and safeguarding of monuments relies. Key concepts, such as prescribed monuments and registered monuments, are introduced with corresponding levels of appropriate legal protection. Provision is made for the ratification of several international treaties should the Government decide to so do. Those treaties cover matters of global importance, such as the illegal trade of stolen cultural property and the protection of underwater cultural heritage. The Bill caters for improvements to licensing and consent systems, promotes regulatory reform and enhances procedural fairness, all while strengthening heritage protection.
Enforcement matters are a significant focus of the Bill. The enforcement notice regime is a major innovation that will introduce workable and robust civil enforcement powers to aid enforcement and help ensure compliance with the legislation without the need for criminal proceedings.
I again thank Senators for their constructive contributions. I also thank the Oireachtas joint committee for its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. We are at an exciting place for the Bill and I look forward to continuing discussions on Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 28 February 2023.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ag 3.28 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ag 4.06 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 3.28 p.m. and resumed at 4.06 p.m.