andMr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he will make a statement on his future policy in relation to the payment of grants towards archaeological excavations.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Archaeological Excavation.
20.
The policy in relation to the payment of grants towards archaeological excavations and the conditions governing such grants are under continuous review by the Commissioners of Public Works. There are no plans for radically altering the present policy.
21.
andMr. Donnellan asked the Minister for Finance why full compliance with the provisions of the National Monuments Acts and of licences issued thereunder is not amongst the conditions imposed in respect of each grant of public funds towards archaeological excavations.
Grants for excavations are paid to the excavator to meet expenses, including wages of workmen, as incurred, and the conditions imposed in respect of them are of an administrative nature to regulate the payments.
Conditions of the type referred to in the question are more appropriate for consideration in connection with the licensing of archaeological excavations under section 26 of the National Monuments Act 1930.
Does the Minister of State consider it a satisfactory situation that in the past ten years approximately a £¼ million has been paid out in grants towards excavations and that in the majority of these cases the objects found by the excavators, although they have been recipients of public money, have not been lodged in the National Museum and that to the best of present knowledge there is no assurance as to their safety on the part of any public body? Is the Minister of State further satisfied that grants should be paid to such excavators where in 16 such cases it transpired, from a reply to a recent parliamentary question, that reports had not been lodged with the appropriate statutory body? In view of these omissions, would the Minister of State not agree that there is an urgent need to review State policy in relation to grants-in-aid for archaeological excavations?
I have given careful consideration to this matter. At present, I am quite satisfied that reports are made and that the people concerned are fulfilling their obligations.
Does the Minister of State not agree that it appeared on the record of this House in response to a parliamentary question—the reference is Question No. 314 of 18 October 1977—that in 16 cases reports were not lodged with the appropriate authority under section 23 of the National Monuments Act? In other words, people received money from the State to do a job and they did not report on it. How can the Minister of State say he is satisfied that reports are being lodged when the record of this House contradicts what he has said?
A careful watch is at all times kept on reporting.
Could the Minister of State tell us if he is satisfied that it is appropriate to give money to excavators to dig up objects when the people concerned who have received public money to dig objects out of the ground where they were perfectly safe and would remain there for generations to come have not fulfilled their obligations, and that there is no assurance that these objects are lodged in the National Museum? Is the Minister of State satisfied that the Government should have spent approximately £¼ million in grants-in-aid for excavations in the absence of such an assurance?
Discussions are going on with the officials of my Department regarding the overall position of grants. Furthermore, the matter of applications for licences is also being considered.
The Minister of State had had an adequate opportunity to consider this matter since it was first raised in the Dáil. We are entitled to expect a decision from him now instead of being told that the matter is still being considered. Is he or is he not satisfied with the present situation?
As I said, careful consideration is being given to this matter at present by myself and the officials in my Department. There is a check on all aspects of this matter.
Is the Minister of State satisfied?
Yes, I am satisfied.
Would the Minister of State agree to insert in future licences a condition that the licensee must lodge all objects found in the course of the excavation in the National Museum?
The 1977 licence states that a licensee shall furnish to the Commissioners of Public Works a report on the excavation and the results thereof. He shall also deposit with the commissioners three copies of any publication by a learned society or any newspaper, periodical or journal containing an account or description of the excavation. That condition has been fulfilled.
Would the Minister of State agree that in future a condition of the granting of any licence should be that the objects found in the course of the excavation be lodged in the National Museum for safe keeping?
I will have to consider that matter.
Could the Minister of State say whether he is prepared to exclude from future consideration for grants persons or organisations who have not fulfilled the reporting requirement in the past?
Yes.
Does the Minister of State not consider it important to ensure that any valuables discovered during excavations should be deposited in the State's Museum, otherwise they may well be exported and lost to the nation?
(Interruptions.)
The matter is being reviewed and I am keeping the whole matter under consideration.
I have asked the Minister of State for his own opinion and I do not want the opinion of some civil servant.
My opinion is that it is correct that the matter should be kept under review.
In the meantime very valuable treasures may be lost to the nation because of the conditions of the licence.
This risk did not arise only in the last month or so.
I agree but two wrongs do not make a right.
I agree and the Deputy has been told that the Minister is considering the matter.
He is considering a lot of things but doing very little about them.
The Deputy and his party were in Government long enough and did little about the matter.
I did not have responsibility.
That is not my fault.
22.
andMr. Donnellan asked the Minister for Finance if any application for financial assistance towards the cost of an archaeological excavation is at present before his Department; and, if so, if he will give details of the application.
There is no such application before my Department at present.
23.
andMr. Donnellan asked the Minister for Finance why either the lodgement in the National Museum of all objects found or some alternative safeguard as to their preservation within the State is not amongst the conditions imposed in respect of each grant of public funds towards archaeological excavations.
I am advised that the owner of land which is archaeologically excavated is entitled to any objects found, other than treasure trove. I have accordingly no statutory function in relation to the custody or conservation of such objects.
Does the Minister agree that the question relates to the granting of public money? The Minister has a function in relation to the granting of public money and I should like to know why he would not impose a condition in relation to the granting of that public money?
They belong to the man on whose land they are found.
Would the Deputy mind repeating his question to me?
The Minister has stated that he does not have responsibility in relation to objects found on land and I accept that under present law he does not but would the Minister not agree that he has a responsibility in relation to the granting of public moneys for excavation? Would the Minister agree that it is open to him to get a prior condition for the acceptance of public moneys that an agreement be obtained from the land owner as to the disposal of any objects found? Will the Minister not seek such an agreement in future before any moneys are paid out?
The Chief State Solicitor, in the course of advice given on 29 October 1977 stated:
The legal position would appear to be that where chattels, other than treasure trove, that is, any gold or silver in coin, plate or bullion, are found on private property, the owner of the property, and not the finder, whether he is a servant of such owner or a stranger is entitled to them, and can maintain an action for their possession.
That is not answering the question I asked. I asked the Minister why he does not make it a condition precedent to the granting of public money that the agreement of the owner be obtained in advance?
I have given the Deputy the legal position.
Why does the Minister not seek such an agreement and, in the event of not getting it, refuse the grant?
The grant is given to the archaeologist.
Can the Minister of State not answer for himself? Archaeologists cannot carry out excavations without the permission of the land owners and it is open to the Minister to seek the agreement of the land owners and the archaeologists before any public moneys are paid out.
The land owner must be pursuaded to allow an archaeologist in in the first instance.
Excavation should not be permitted unless the permission is obtained.
We want the excavation.
But the Minister does not want the treasure for the nation.
There is no point in permitting excavations if the stuff is lost.
24.
andMr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he will make a statement on his future policy in relation to the issue of archaeological excavation licences under the National Monuments Acts.
The policy relating to the granting of excavation licences and to the conditions governing such licences is kept under continuous review by the Commissioners of Public Works. There are no plans for radically altering the present policy.
25.
andMr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he intends to take steps to recover public moneys paid out in grants towards the cost of archaeological excavations where the provisions of the National Monuments Acts in regard to the reporting of finds and the adherence to the terms of excavation licences have not been adhered to.
No.
The grants are made to further archaeological research and the full interpretation of the results may require much research and investigation and a great deal of time.
The Commissioners of Public Works are satisfied to accept a full report at the end of the necessary study and investigation of the finds and I see no reason why they should depart from this policy.
I do intend, however, to ask them to arrange with the Director of the National Museum that he would inform them, in future, at the end of each year whether the conditions which involve the National Museum have been fulfilled to this satisfaction.
Would the Minister not agree that there is a condition that in respect of any archaeological object found a report of its finding must be lodged within 14 days of the finding of the object? It is clear from a reply the Minister gave that this condition has not been complied with in a large number of cases in which the archaeologist responsible had received substantial amounts of public moneys, amounting to many thousands of pounds. Will the Minister tell the House why he is not prepared to take any steps to recover that money because clearly the people who have received it have not been complying with their legal obligations?
The Deputy should ask a question and not make a long statement.
The Deputy asked a question.
He did not do so until the end of a long statement.
It is very difficult to reply to that. They are given the grant for excavation, to pay workmen and the other people involved. It would be difficult for us to ask for a report on all details. I should like to inform the Deputy that section 23 of the National Monuments Act 1930 as amended by section 13 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1954, stipulates that every person who finds any archaeological object shall, within 14 days after he has found such an object, make a report of such finding to a member of the Garda Síochána or the Director of the National Museum. While this is a reasonable requirement in the case of the finding, accidental or otherwise, of isolated archaeological objects, it is not always easy to comply with it in the case of an archaeological excavation likely to be in progress for many years where sometimes hundreds of objects of a routine nature can come to light in the course of the excavation. The commissioners consider that this condition should be interpreted in a reasonable manner and would be satisfied if periodic reports of finds were made to the satisfaction of the National Museum, pending submission of the final report. The commissioners would expect, however, that any finds of exceptional importance would be reported promptly.
Would the Minister agree that what he has stated is tantamount to saying that there is one law for the ordinary person who finds something, but that there is a much more lenient law for the archaeologist, who is in receipt of public money, who finds something?
The archaeologist is a much more responsible person.
The law is the law and it applies to everybody.
Is the Deputy accusing our archaeologists of being crooks?
I am asking questions but I am not getting answers.
The Minister is twisting the Deputy's question and he knows it. He should allow the Minister of State answer the questions put to him.
Would the Chair tell the House the Minister responsible?
I resent these attacks on our archaeologists. They are a professional body of responsible men.
Nobody is attacking the archaeologists.
The Deputies are accusing them of bad faith.
That is not correct. The Minister is deliberately distorting the question.
The Deputies are attacking the archaeological profession. It is a disgraceful behaviour.
The Minister is being disorderly even though he is the senior politician here.
We must have order on both sides.
26.
andMr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he is satisfied, in each case in which all objects discovered in the licensed archaeological excavations in the past ten years have not been lodged in the National Museum, that the objects are (a) in safe keeping, (b) within the State, (c) have not deteriorated, (d) have been adequately documented for future study and (e) are available for study by all interested Irish archaeologists; if not, the action he proposes to take in the matter; and if adequate powers are available to him to deal with the situation.
Excavation licences are granted to reputable achaeologists and I have no reason to believe that they would be in any way lacking in the care and documentation of objects discovered during their excavations. Neither have I any reason to believe that such objects are not or will not be in due course available for study by other interested archaeologists.
The answer by the Minister for Education to Question No. 295 of 18 October 1977 gave details of objects which were discovered during excavations in the past ten years and which were temporarily exported for research, conservation, and similar purposes.
Can the Minister be satisfied about the safe keeping of the objects when, in reply to a question some weeks ago, he admitted that he does not know where they are?
That is wrong.
I suppose it is a separate question.
I assume that archaeologists will keep finds safe and free from avoidable deterioration. I also assume that they will document them.
Will the Minister prepare a manifesto of the list of archaeological objects?
If money is given out, regardless of how reputable the recipients might be, would the Minister agree that it is his responsibility to find out where those objects are? Would he agree that it is his responsibility to satisfy himself, regardless of the bona fides or otherwise of the people to whom he gave the money, as to where the objects are?
I have just told the Deputy that they belong to the land owner.
The Minister does not understand this matter and I suggest he keep quiet.
I know more about the matter than the Deputy.
A question has been addressed to the Minister responsible and I should like to know if he will be given an opportunity to reply.
Minister Haughey is not the leader of his party yet.
The Minister responsible has answered the Deputies on at least ten occasions. The Deputies are only interested in attacking the archaeological profession. Deputy Bruton was in a position of responsibility for four years and he did nothing about this matter.
What does the Minister know about it?
The Deputy should not talk about responsibility or I might have to control him.
I am not going to be intimidated by Deputy Haughey.
The Deputy might have to withdraw another letter.
That letter stands. I will answer it this week.
On a point of order, is it in order to have a Minister threaten a Member and infer things about him in the House without your intervention?
If he were threatened I would ask to have it withdrawn, but I do not accept that there was a threat involved. If we could cease having argument across the House we might make some progress.
On a point of order, are the innuendos thrown across the House by that Minister to be allowed by you?
What innuendo?
I heard it.
(Interruptions.)
27.
andMr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he is satisfied with the enforcement, with particular reference to archaeological excavations licensed by him, of the provisions of section 23 of the National Monuments Act, 1930 in relation to the reporting within 14 days of the finding of archaeological objects.
I am satisfied that the finding of archaeological objects in the course of excavations licensed by the Commissioners of Public Works is, in the majority of cases, reported in accordance with section 23 of the National Monuments Act, 1930. I have asked the commissioners to consider whether any further action is desirable on their part to ensure that the purpose of the section is achieved.
In how many cases was it not complied with?
In reply to Question No. 319 by Deputy Bruton on Wednesday, 12 October 1977 the Minister for Finance listed 45 sites in respect of which the commissioners had granted excavation licences for a ten-year period up to and including 1977. The Minister for Education informed Deputy Bruton in reply to Question No. 314 on 18 October 1977 that reports of finds in accordance with section 23 of the National Monuments Act, 1930, had been received in the case of 30 of those sites. The majority of the sites where reports had not yet been received were the subject of a licence granted only in 1977.
28.
andMr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the action he proposes to take in relation to the finding in the course of the current archaeological survey by the Office of Public Works that on average 15 per cent of the ancient monuments of which records were available have been destroyed in recent times.
The possibility of affording more effective legal protection to all ancient monuments is being considered in the context of proposals for updating the National Monuments Acts.
In the meantime the powers available to the Commissioners of Public Works under existing legislation are being availed of to an increasing extent to protect monuments.
Can the Minister say in relation to the findings of the archaeological survey what are the main reasons for the apparent destruction of 15 per cent of the ancient monuments of which records previously existed?
Is the Deputy talking about the steps to be taken for their protection?
I should like if the Minister could tell me in general what were the main reasons why 15 per cent of the national monuments of which records previously existed appear, according to this survey, to have since been destroyed? I am sure he will agree that this is a matter of serious concern.
To date survey work has been undertaken in nine counties— Louth, Monaghan, Westmeath, Meath, Longford, Cavan, Kildare, Dublin and Offaly. In the majority of these counties an inventory has been virtually completed and a scientific survey of all archaeological monuments up to about 1200 A.D. has either been completed or is well advanced.
That was not the question I asked. What are the reasons, as disclosed in the survey, why apparently 15 per cent of the monuments have been destroyed? I realise the reasons will not always be the same but I would like to have some general statement of the different reasons and the type of problems that have arisen.
Who is answering those questions?
This is a separate question.
If it is a separate question I take it I will be able to put down another question later.
Yes.
29.
andMr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he will give details of the location and date of searches of historic ships along the Irish coast which, in so far as he is aware, have been carried out in recent years; the likely archaeological and financial value of these ships and their contents; and the qualifications of the persons carrying out the searches.
I am aware that in recent years searches of the following historic ships were made along the Irish coast:—
(1) La Trinidad Valencera at Kinnego Bay, County Donegal. Search of this vessel commenced in 1971.
(2) Santa Maria de la Rosa in the Blasket Sound in 1968 and 1969.
(3) Santa Anna Maria at Castle-townshend, County Cork in 1970.
The other information sought is not available.
Do any safeguards apply under existing legislation regarding the way in which those searches are carried out and in regard to the objects which are found within Irish territorial waters, some of which are obviously of great value considering that those ships carried gold bullion and were part of the Spanish Armada? Is there any safeguard regarding those objects being lodged in the keeping of the Government or some other appropriate body which would look after them in the interests of the Irish people?
The National Monuments Act does not cover wrecks since they are not included in the definition of national monuments therein. The bringing of wrecks within the ambit of the Act would require further legislation. This is being considered at the moment.
Could the Minister give me any indication if such legislation will be introduced and if he intends meanwhile to impose any safeguards or seek on a voluntary basis the manner in which excavations of wrecks within our territorial waters are carried out?
All I can say at this stage is that substantial changes will be necessary and the question of extending protection to wrecked ships of historical importance is being considered in this context. I am afraid I cannot give the Deputy any further information on this matter.
30.
andMr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he has any proposals to change or qualify the position whereby the owner of land which is archaeologically excavated is entitled to any object found, other than treasure trove; and if he is satisfied that this position is conducive to the proper care being taken of the objects found.
Proposals to amend the National Monuments legislation are under consideration by the Commissioners of Public Works. Until these proposals have been submitted to and approved by the Government it would be premature to give details.