I will make a general comment as I have not had the chance to put anything on the record in this regard.
Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention) Bill 2016: Committee Stage
Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
The Minister could quit while he is winning.
I am impressed by the committee's pace.
We might put a time limit on this.
Everything that needed to be said was said on Second Stage.
I wish every Chairman was as efficient as this Chairman. The purpose of the Bill is to make the necessary provisions in Irish law to enable the State to ratify a 1954 Hague Convention on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. There is also a 1999 protocol that supplements this. It is important to recognise these conventions go back some time. I am glad to say we are amending Irish law to recognise them. This is as important in terms of the signal sent to other countries as it is to the law in Ireland. I am glad to say we are unlikely to have armed conflict in Ireland where this law would be necessary to apply but, unfortunately, many other countries are not in those circumstances. We have seen devastating consequences of the destruction of very significant cultural and historical monuments, artefacts and so on in the latest Syrian war, for example, as well as many other conflicts in other parts of the world. I hope that with Ireland ratifying and producing this legislation, we will encourage others to do likewise. I thank the Opposition for its support in allowing us to move this through swiftly.
I outlined the rationale for my party's support of this legislation on Second Stage in the Dáil. I agree with the Minister that this requires an approach from the whole of the European Union. This copperfastens our international obligations but the rationale for our support for the Bill without amendment was outlined in the debate in the Chamber on Second Stage.
There are no amendments to the Bill and we welcome it. A total of 126 states are party to the Hague Convention and we want to ensure Ireland makes the necessary provisions in law to ensure it complies with obligations. I acknowledge the work of my colleague in the North, Ms Carál Ní Chuilín, who served as Minister with responsibility for culture, arts and leisure in the Six Counties and supported similar legislation in the Assembly. I welcome the Bill but I also want to see the application of its core values in the country at all times. It is useful to be cognisant of the various aspects of cultural property in this country during peace, and not just in the case of war, as the Bill outlines. It would be farcical to lament the destruction of cultural property in war without applying the same standards to the preservation of such property during peace.
We need only look at the historical quarter around Moore Street, which falls into the broad and positive definition of cultural property as laid down in section 1 of this Bill, yet it remains under threat from the policies of the Government and construction companies. I am thankful we are at peace but I wonder whether outsiders looking in would consider the Government guilty of the destruction of our cultural property in peace through negligence and ignorance. We have seen historic buildings being knocked down by developers because of light-touch legislation in the past and I refer to fighting a legal battle against the likes of the Moore Street campaign with public money in order to side with developers, whose only appreciation of culture is from pictures on bank notes. I commend the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who held a cultural event last weekend on Moore Street that drew attention to the spirit of bygone days, as well as the historic nature of the quarter. I support the Bill but we must also scrutinise what we do during peace as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.