I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I have circulated a copy of my speech——
Private Members' Business. - National Heritage Bill, 1980: Second Stage.
I should like to point out to the Deputy that it is circulated with the permission of the Chair. Somebody came to me and asked for permission, but I should like to point out that this is not usual practice.
With the permission of the Chair, I should like to circulate my speech.
I am trying to ensure that a precedent is not established. Deputies do not generally do this or read out their speech. However, in view of the circumstances we will allow it on this occasion.
I wish to thank the Chair.
This Bill, entitled the National Heritage Bill, 1980, deals with an important part of our heritage—the physical remains of our past. We hope that other aspects of our heritage will be dealt with in later legislation. The Bill sets out to modernise and extend the National Monuments Acts, 1930 and 1954. These Acts provide the legal protection of our heritage at the moment. There have been many changes since 1954, such as new techniques of exploration, rapid industrialisation and intensive agriculture. These require new legislative powers to ensure that they do not damage our heritage. The Government have been working on new legislation for the past ten years but it is very slow in coming forth. Therefore, Fine Gael decided to introduce their own Bill in order to accelerate matters.
I will now outline the effect of each section of the Bill. Section I relates the Bill to previous legislation on this subject. Section 2 contains definitions. Section 3 introduces for the first time control on the taking of objects from, or otherwise disturbing, shipwrecks or other ancient structures now below the high water mark. There are a number of important shipwrecks around our coast, particularly the Spanish Armada wrecks. In at least one known case they have been plundered without any control because of the lack of the power which this Bill will now confer on the Commissioners of Public Works. This Bill will basically impose the same controls on excavation or searches at sea as are applied to archaeological excavation on land. However, a specific exception is made for work carried out at sea for the purposes of safety.
Section 4 is designed to provide better information to the public and the Oireachtas on all aspects of archaeological excavation and prospecting carried out on land and on sea. The requirement to be imposed on the Office of Public Works to present a report each year will provide an added assurance that all those carrying out excavations comply in full with their statutory obligations to report promptly on their excavations. There have been a few cases of extremely long delays in the presenting of statutory reports on excavations which had been carried out with the aid of public funds.
Section 5 is designed to ensure that ancient buildings which are still being lived in by families can be effectively preserved. Up to now the Office of Public Works could only take into their care a building which had become uninhabited or, in plain words, a ruin. These buildings become derelict before anything can be done about them. One has only to look around this city to see buildings of great historic merit, which are still inhabited, falling slowly into dilapidation because their owners cannot or will not preserve them. Section 5 will remove the barrier against the Commissioners of Public Works becoming the guardians of such inhabited buildings.
Section 6 ensures that objects found in excavations of shipwrecks will be preserved and, where necessary, lodged for safe keeping and public display in the National Museum.
Section 7 closes a loophole in existing law which risks the export or retention for exclusively private enjoyment of important historic objects. Up to now only the person who actually found it was legally obliged to report the existence of an historic object. If he passes it on, or sells it, to an antique dealer or collector there is at the moment no legal obligation on the dealer or collector to report the objects to anyone. In practice antique dealers and collectors are much more likely than casual finders to appreciate the significance and value of a historic object. Therefore it makes a lot of sense to extend the obligation to report the possession of historic objects to such people. A loophole whereby people could claim that they were not certain that an object was of archaeological significance is also removed. If they ought reasonably to have believed it was an historic object then they will be obliged to report it.
Section 8 is concerned with the use of metal detectors in searches for archaeological objects. Already anyone who digs for an historic object is bound to get a licence to do so, but no licence is required to prospect with a metal detector. We believe it is important that unauthorised excavations should not take place.
Although some important metal objects may be found, historic items of a more fragile or non-metallic character may be destroyed or damaged in the process. If the exact context and level at which the objects were found is not recorded—as is likely in an unauthorised excavation—information about the origin and significance of the objects may be lost for ever. The only way to ensure that our past is not destroyed is for all excavations, whether prompted by readings on a metal detector or not, to be properly authorised by competent authorities. This section will require that the use of metal detectors for archaeological purposes be licensed. This will not ban their use but it will ensure that they are used responsibly. The section will not interfere with the use of metal detectors for normal industrial or agricultural purposes.
Section 9 is designed to ensure that there is no repetition of the occurrence at Wood Quay, Dublin, where the Government authorised the destruction of a national monument without having obtained the consent of the Dáil. In future any consent to the destruction of a national monument will have to be incorporated in an order, which will only take effect after it has been approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. This will place the responsibility for protecting our national heritage firmly on the shoulders of the Members of the Dáil and Seanad.
This Bill is the product of three years' work. Not all of it is my work—much of it has been done by my colleague, Deputy Bruton. Even so, there are bound to be aspects in which it can be improved by amendments or additions. We will particularly welcome reasonable amendments emanating from the Government, who can draw on the extensive experience of the Office of Public Works and the National Museum. The Government may indeed have a larger measure of their own in preparation, but the preparation of a larger measure is not an excuse for failing to enact this one. The subjects that this Bill deals with are all urgent. They cannot wait two or three more years for a comprehensive Government Bill. Any drafting defects in this Bill can be easily corrected by amendments which we will welcome. The important thing is to act now and to show that this, the 21st Dáil, will protect our national heritage. I urge all parties to support this Bill and ensure that it becomes law.
As a member of Dáil Éireann I had an opportunity to travel to a number of places on parliamentary delegations. I remember being in Strasbourg in the company of the present Minister of State on a fact finding mission prior to our entry into the EEC. We were approximately five or six days in Strasbourg and on the last day of our visit we went on a tour a guide pointed out all the seen much in Strasbourg, when we went on the tour a guide pointed out all the things that had been preserved and I was quite amazed. We should follow their example and preserve our heritage.
On the invitation of our parliamentary colleagues in Europe we visited Berlin. Berlin has been ravaged by two wars, one in 1918 and the other in 1945. The amount of work that has been done to restore the city, particularly in East Berlin, is remarkable. It would be an education for all Members of the House to be brought on a guided tour of Berlin to see what the Germans have done in such a short time. We could relate it back to our situation.
In 1979 at the invitation of the Iraqi Government I visited Baghdad and had the pleasure of visiting Babylon and places of that nature. A lot of the treasures of that country have been plundered by the British and are in British museums in one place or another but at the same time a lot of effort has been put into trying to preserve their past by a relatively undeveloped country and until recently a very poor country.
Relative to the United States or other places, Ireland is a very old country and we should be very proud of our heritage. We should do our best to preserve it, if not for ourselves, then for future generations. The preservation of our heritage could also be a tourist attraction. Even from that point of view this Bill should be accepted.
This Bill might be rejected on the grounds that the Government have already prepared a Bill. Many people could add to what we have in the Bill as it stands and it could be amended, but it should not be just thrown out like most of the measures brought in by the Opposition during Private Members' Time. Two other Bills on this subject were enacted, one in 1930 and the other in 1954, but neither was introduced by Fianna Fáil. It should be no shame or embarrassment to the Government to support legislation brought in by the Opposition. It should not be considered that any legislation we propose is bad and that by virtue of their electoral majority the legislation proposed by Fianna Fáil is all good. On that basis I invite Members to listen to what we have to say on this legislation so that they may be open to cast their vote one way or the other.
This is a remarkable day here because we have a Bill that will probably be accepted without division, that is the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1980, on which Deputies expressed their opinions. I expressed my opinion about its defects and the failings as far as I am concerned, but on a national basis there is not too much wrong with it. This second Bill should be accepted by the Government in the same way, as it is not a political Bill. I commend the Bill to the House and I ask all Deputies to support it.
I welcome the interest being taken in the preservation of our national monuments by Deputy Donnellan, as shown by his introduction of this Bill to amend and extend the National Monuments Act, 1930, and the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1954.
There is no doubt that since the 1940 Act was passed, and even since the amending Act in 1954, there have been developments in relation to archaeology and in the whole matter of the preservation of national monuments which have prompted many people to wonder about the adequacy or otherwise of our existing legislation. It will be acknowledged by anyone who is familiar with the subject, that our present legislation provides quite extensive powers for the protection of monuments and of archaeological objects and in many respects compares quite favourably with the level of protection given in other countries. But in recent years some matters have emerged, or have taken on an importance which was not foreseen when the present statutes were formulated, which simply are not adequately catered for by the provisions of the existing statutes. Among such matters are two with which Deputy Donnellan's Bill attempts to come to grips, namely, the protection of shipwrecks of historic importance and the control of electronic devices when used by people searching for archaeological objects.
Deputy Donnellan proposes to give shipwrecks—or sea wrecks as he describes them—the same protection that is given to monuments on land, and he also wants to see curbs placed on the use of electronic devices by people prospecting for archaeological objects on land or in inland waterways. One point which might be remembered in relation to both these issues is that diving for wrecks and searching with metal detectors for buried treasure are activities which are regarded by many people as legitimate and harmless pursuits. They have become part of the world of hobbies and recreational activities, facilitated in both instances by increases in leisure time and developments in technical equipment. They undoubtedly afford innocent enjoyment to a lot of people, but unfortunately it is also a fact that both activities are pursued in certain instances by people who are motivated solely by the prospects of easy gains, who do not care what damage they might do to the setting in which any finds they retrieve may have rested.
Even where the exploration, whether under water or on land, is carried out with genuinely honourable intentions, there is always the danger that untrained and unskilled hands will damage or destroy evidence that would be of value to a qualified investigator. I would in principle, therefore, endorse what Deputy Donnellan is attempting to achieve. I am conscious of the particular difficulties associated with drawing up provisions to deal with shipwrecks. In this connection, I draw attention to the report of the Council of Europe's Committee on Culture and Education in 1978 on the Underwater Cultural Heritage. In an appendix to the report the position in regard to legal protection was reviewed in some detail. It was found that the position varied substantially from country to country not only in the amount of legal protection afforded to the underwater heritage but in the laws as to ownership of items lying underwater and in the laws relating to salvage and wreck.
I should like to quote from paragraph 2.1.4 of the Council of Europe report on The Underwater Cultural Heritage, 1978, which states:
Although it is obvious that there is a considerable volume of law on the cultural heritage in European waters this is not to say that there is adequate protection. The laws as shown take many forms. Individual laws also vary greatly in context; from the very complex and complete to the simple and rudimentary. This does not seem to be a reaction to the complexity or simplicity of the problems facing individual countries. Rather the law has sometimes followed particular acts of despoliation; sometimes it represents a compromise between vested interests (which may not be represented in other countries); sometimes it was all that parliamentary time could be found for; sometimes it is a simple extension to the underwater areas of complex antiquities legislation that developed from many years experience on land without consideration of its appropriateness in the new environment.
The question of ownership of items of the underwater cultural heritage is at present very confused.
2.2.2 Items in territorial waters of a state may be controlled by quite different rules. A primary consideration in the case of ships and their cargo, is whether or not the owner has abandoned these objects. If abandoned, does title pass to the finder, the state of the finder or the state within whose territorial waters they have been found? The most common practice under national law seems to be for title to be deemed to pass to the last. However, it must be made clear that abandonment is usually something that must be strictly proven: mere non-use does not suffice to bring about abandonment.
Moreover, some states now provide for termination of ownership rights in ships and cargo sunk within territorial waters after a specified period of time (Spain and Portugal). Items in territorial waters will also be affected by the salvage laws, that is the salvage provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, apply "at any place on or near the coasts of the United Kingdom or any tidal water within the limits of the United Kingdom. Although the salvor usually does not have title to what he raises he does have certain rights in relation thereto in order to ensure his reward for effort and risk involved.
2.3.3 There are great differences in applying the concepts of salvage laws to the recovery of objects from the sites of shipwrecks where the cultural and historical value of these objects in their context outweighs their economic value, because if the person who has gained possession of the site is interested only in the economic value of the objects recovered there is no guarantee that the site will be correctly treated. Much of the historical and cultural value of the objects may result from their position and relationship to other objects. A salvor will not normally be concerned with this aspect although a good context can increase commercial value too. He will find no value in things such as ships' timbers and furnishings which are of immense interest to the archaeologist. Furthermore, there are problems in gaining possession of the archaeological site: the wreck may be too scattered and dispersed to enable possession to be taken and this issue may be further complicated by the law relating to wreck.
The use of metal detectors by people searching for objects hidden beneath the surface of the ground has been seen by many people for some time as something which should be brought under control. In Britain, recent legislation has provided penalties for the unauthorised use of metal detectors at the sites of national monuments and in areas of archaeological importance and there have been calls for similar provisions to be brought in in this country. It should be stressed, however, that under the law as it stands at present, anyone who without the consent in writing of the Commissioners of Public Works excavates or digs anywhere in the country in search of archaeological objects, whether or not a metal detector is used, is committing an offence and is leaving himself open to a fine. If the searching is done at the site of a national monument, the person faces possible imprisonment as well.
As I am sure everyone will agree however, unless we have a well informed alert and responsive attitude by the general public to such activities, legislation on its own will be almost worthless. I note that by means of a seemingly innocuous deletion Deputy Donnellan would propose to make quite a significant extension to the type of property which would come within the scope of the legislation. I refer to his proposed amendment of section 5 of the 1930 Act, whereby he wants buildings occupied as residences to be brought within the provision which would enable their owners to give them into the guardianship of the Commissioners or of a local authority.
By virtue of the proposed deletion the way would be open for the owners of architecturally or historically interesting buildings, still in use as dwelling houses, to seek to have the commissioners take them over for maintenance. I am not sure if that is the principle behind Deputy Donellan's proposal, but if it is I would agree that there could be cases where properties of the nature in question could be regarded as having a place in our cultural heritage and it would be a pity to see such structures falling into neglect.
In some countries there are schemes to provide assistance to the owners of buildings of historical or architectural importance, to ensure that such buildings are adequately maintained, and there have been calls from time to time that we in Ireland should also make special provisions in that regard. One of the ways in which it was argued in the past that assistance could be given was through relief from rates, but of course with the general removal of rates from residences the owners of such properties have benefited along with the owners of more modest dwellings. The Government have also given the owners of such properties relief through the modification of the capital taxation laws.
An examination of the approach to the protection of monuments in other countries indicates that in many European countries monuments are protected and preserved under three different types of legislation, that is, (a) Ancient Monuments Acts; (b) Planning Acts and (c) Historic Buildings Acts. Under (a) the State accepts direct responsibility for the protection and preservation of monuments including responsibility for the execution of any necessary works and the cost thereof. In some cases a date, up to which architectural monuments are regarded as ancient monuments, is specified in the legislation. Under (b) protection is extended to monuments by the control of development through the planning authorities. In the case of (c) the State and/or local authorities provide assistance to owners or occupiers of buildings of great historical or architectural importance by affording relief from rates or taxes and/or by direct financial aid or compensation as an incentive to the owners or occupiers to preserve the structures as part of the country's heritage and also as a valuable recreational resource. The general consideration here is that the building is still in use or still capable of being used for the purpose for which it was originally intended or for an analogous purpose.
So far as Ireland is concerned, I feel that there is a lot to be said on the side of the framers of the 1930 Act who excluded occupied buildings from the application of the provisions of the National Monuments Acts. I would repeat that this does not mean that we would regard with equanimity the prospect of any of these distinguished houses going to rack and ruin, but we feel that the onus to see that they survive rests primarily on the owners. Whether or not Deputy Donnellan would accept that proposition, he would perhaps agree that the problem of seeing how best to go about ensuring the proper upkeep of occupied houses is rather distinct and separate from that of preserving deserted and generally ruined monuments of the past. If there were to be any question of legislative provision for State assistance to maintain occupied buildings, it would probably be desirable to have whole new procedures and systems set up to deal with them, rather than try to squeeze them into the existing legislation for national monuments by deleting, as Deputy Donnellan proposes to do, the present exclusion in section 5 of the 1930 Act.
The other major point of Deputy Donnellan's Bill seems to be that aimed at amending section 14 of the 1930 Act. I do not propose to dwell on this suggestion apart from saying that I would more readily have understood an amendment aimed at giving means of appeal to a person who was refused a consent under the section rather than making it necessary for him to make a case not only to the commissioners, but to both houses of the Oireachtas as well, before he could get a consent. I am of course in complete agreement with the intention to increase substantially the penalties for infringement of the Act.
In conclusion, I would say that it is understandable in the wake of an event such as the recent momentous find in County Tipperary that people would want to take a critical look at the legislation relating to the protection and preservation of our relics of the past to see in what respect it may be desirable to make new provisions or to modify existing ones. On that account we appreciate Deputy Donnellan's concern to see the enactment of the Bill which he has now brought forward but because of its many shortcomings I must oppose any further consideration of that Bill.
What shortcomings?
The Government feel that what is needed at this stage is not further piecemeal amendment of the Act of 1930 but a general review of our approach to national monuments generally leading to a new Act which will continue those provisions of the existing legislation which still hold good and at the same time will incorporate such new provisions as are needed to meet changing circumstances. Much work has already been done on the preparation of a new Bill and I can assure the House that it is our intention to have it ready for introduction as soon as possible.
When is "as soon as possible"?
After the Summer Recess.
Is the Minister sure?
Yes.
The Minister has made a great case in support of my Bill.
In supporting this excellent Bill from the Fine Gael Party, moved in the name of Deputy Donnellan, with a fair degree of godfathership coming from Deputy John Bruton, I must say that I was saddened by the response of the Minister of State in what was otherwise an excellently read script. Unfortunately, the text of the script does not augur well for our monuments. We must be honest on this non-contentious issue, now that Wood Quay is being slowly and systematically taken apart. The Minister knows in his heart—I hope he corrects me if I am wrong—that he does not have the heads of a Bill agreed by the Government.
We are preparing a Bill.
The Minister is longer in this House than I am——
The Board of Works are ten years on this matter.
The Bill itself when it comes will be worthy of preservation as a national monument. The reality is that the heads of the Bill have not been circulated, through no fault of the Minister for State here.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Quinn, without interruption, please.
Deputy Leyden would be well advised to look after Roscommon rather than national monuments. As the mover of this Bill has already said in a very generously made offer it is open to amendment. The sections of it could be amended and if the expertise and undoubted experience of the Board of Works were brought to bear on this Bill which is already printed and published, I suggest, in a spirit of co-operation to the Minister that we would be much further along the road than we are at present. There are many reasons why the drafting of legislation can be delayed and many of them may have nothing to do with the Department in question which initially sponsors the Bill. Deputies on this side of the House accept and recognise that. We know that the Department are not in sole control of the heads of a Bill or its contents and that a Bill must take its place in a queue. I hope that the same argument I am making now will be applied and accepted when the Government party move over to this side of the House and measures such as this can be accepted in Private Members' Time without opposition for the sake of opposition and voting against it for the sake of voting against it. Whatever about the Government's refusal last week to take a much more contentious Bill in regard to land. I do not think this is a contentious measure in the context of party politics. It is to that extent that the inevitable response of the Minister of State here is regrettable. It is proper that I should open my contribution on the Bill by regretting that and I am sure other speakers will concur.
As the mover said, the Bill is an amending one which attempts to amend the two Principal Acts, the 1930 Act and the 1954 Act. The question of shipwrecks, which is the first section that it relates to in terms of where it wishes to extend or amend the law, has become all the more critical now because of the improved technology which makes the unauthorised piracy of shipwrecks below the high water mark all the more feasible. It is in response to that technological change that this section has been brought in. It is in response to that new technological reality that the Government should be moving rapidly. We have seen that they are not prepared or are unwilling or unable to move quickly and it is regrettable that this measure as it stands cannot be accepted in principle on Second Stage by the Minister.
The question of metal detectors reached a certain prominence because of recent finds in Tipperary and, more to the point, in the UK. This represents the introduction of a new kind of technology which makes it possible for people who otherwise would not do so to hunt for treasure. They are not acting particularly on behalf of the national heritage and as a consequence, particularly in a country like Ireland where many treasures were buried in the panic and flight from a Viking raid, many unknown portions of our national heritage which we have not yet seen may come to light in our time or that of our children or grandchildren and are potentially at risk from this kind of activity if we do not attempt to regulate it. Regulating it by amending the two Principal Acts will not necessarily be the end of the story as people can still do what they propose if they want to do it, but the law would be considerably strengthened if this measure was included. I do not see that as unreasonable. While the Minister has made the inevitable response, I think subsequent Government speakers are under obligation to flesh out the argument presented by the Minister.
Section 5 of this Bill proposes to amend and extend the Principal Act in a manner I would welcome very much whereby the guardianship of buildings could be taken over either by the commissioners or, significantly, by a local authority if the buildings were inhabited. I shall come back to that later but I want to run through the extent of the Bill. The significance of that in the context of a definition of a national monument in 1980 is considerable. It has an urgency that is as pressing in my view as the need to do something about metal detectors after the Killenaule find.
There is another very reasonable amendment providing a very sensible precaution regarding the exportation of objects. Yet the Minister did not see fit to respond to it. Then there is the question of getting the approval of this House, to which section 9 of this Bill and section 14 of the Principal Act relate, regarding the notification of and approval by the House by way of order. Unless national monuments are being systematically taken apart every other week the requirement that approval of the Oireachtas be sought before dismantling or destroying a national monument is not unreasonable and will not clutter up our timetable here, particularly in view of the manner in which the Private Members' Bill proposes to bring it before the House. Lastly there is the section calling for proper examination and systematic reports by licensees who obtain licences to excavate what is the property of all the people of the country in trust of the administration, the national heritage, publication of reports and making known information on their finds. Again, this is a reasonable amendment.
Before I turn to the question of ancient monuments and extending guardianship, there is a fundamental question here relating to the whole purpose of this House. We are either concerned about making laws as a legislative Assembly or we are here as rubber stamps with flesh and bones and feet enabling us to walk into the lobbies because an executive of 15 Cabinet Ministers and a non-elected civil service effectively decide what Bills will or will not become law. We might as well be watching this on television and writing letters to our constituents. If we are not able to make laws in areas where I believe there is probably substantial agreement or consensus, the whole question of the effectiveness of the Oireachtas in this sovereign Republic must be seriously questioned. I say that with some regret because I do not think the Minister would come into the House willingly and wantonly trying to put down this proposal. A good deal of enthusiasm and energy have gone into this Bill. A Bill has been produced and that is more than the permanent civil service have been able to do over the past ten years for whatever reason. The reality is that the Bill has been published and, rather than sit down and systematically amend it with all the expertise and experience that the Office of Public Works and the commissioners have, the Government have seen fit to shoot it down because it comes from the wrong side of the House.
The record should show, and I hope the public will be so informed, that in 1980 in this country republican democracy has been reduced to the level that on a consensus issue we cannot say: "Yes, we agree in principle. We do not like this section and we want to amend that section, but we will take it into Committee Stage and incorporate it in a Government Bill". As far as the Labour Party are concerned we do not seek a political pound of flesh on this matter. If the Government want to dress it up and come back with some face-saving formula, we will be more than happy to discuss it with them.
A provision that I think is becoming increasingly important and which I hope will be incorporated in the official Bill which we are promised in slow gestation is contained in section 5 of this Bill. The definition of a national monument in 1980 must be seriously reviewed. I think there was a sense that only those monuments that were manifestly ancient, or manifestly ruins or manifestly belonging to a safe Celtic period would be deemed national monuments with the consequence that when I was a member of Dublin Corporation, part of the problem for a long time was that the official experts who were advising the members of the local authority refused to accept the possibility that this site might even be a national monument. If in 1975 we were of the view that Wood Quay was potentially a national monument the decisions that a lot of councillors took on the professional advice of the directors of the National Museum would have been different. We have played far too safe on the definition of what is a national monument.
Many parts of our towns and cities increasingly, in a corporate sense, whether inhabited buildings, squares or simple aspects of towns or cities, have now become part of our culture and must be brought under the protection of some kind of legislation. This Private Members' Bill rather than the Planning Acts is the kind of legislation which I envisage would cover it. Some very interesting theoretical work has been done by a number of sociologists and urbanologists, the most notable being Professor Bogdon Bogdonovich of the University of Budapest, whose work was frequently referred to in 1976 during the European Architectural Heritage year. It is now clearly accepted by many authorities in Europe generally that national monuments are no longer the big imposing buildings of the established authorities of the day, that the castles, palaces, cathedrals and fortresses only relate to one aspect of a people's culture, usually that of the ruling class of the day whether it be the church, the army or some oligarchy of one kind or another and that, increasingly, the cities and towns that were made and the houses and buildings, whether for working in, living in or for both, which were made by people, are as much a part of the national heritage and consequently constitute a national monument, as the traditional imposing monuments.
Those buildings are not being protected. The Planning Acts, the 1976 Act and the Principal Act of 1963 do not give adequate protection to such areas we would describe as national monuments particularly if they are lived in. The Minister of State spoke about the rates relief which has now been wiped out. I am not aware of anybody living in a Georgian-preserved house in Dublin who benefited from rates relief because the building was listed in A or B of the development plan of Dublin city. I am very well aware of the cost of maintenance and rehabilitation that such an old building requires, particularly if we take into account the damage that is done by heavy trucks and atmospheric fumes of one kind or another on the mortar binding the bricks and all the other technical things that make the preservation of those buildings so costly in 1980. Between now and the end of the century whole sections of our cities and towns whether it be Galway, Kilkenny, Dublin or elsewhere throughout the country will be undoubtedly at risk. The Minister of State said that it was up to the owners of those properties to maintain them. His colleague in the Department of the Environment, implementing and administering the Planning Acts of 1963 and 1976, is giving power to local authorities to put conservation area orders on sections of those towns and villages.
I have always held that a proposal by a local authority to conserve a particular street façade is an effective form of expropriation if the local authority do not agree to take on some of the obligations of ownership. That means some contribution towards preservation and maintenance. Dublin Corporation, with which I am very familiar, have listed for conservation whole street façades of the city of Dublin. They have simply said in their development plan: "The front of your building now belongs to the city of Dublin. You must maintain it and you cannot alter it. If you let it get into a state of dereliction you are in breach of the law." The corporation, by doing that, on behalf of the city of Dublin, have expropriated the external façade and appearance of that building but they have not consequently said that in return for doing that and in return for the recognition of part ownership of the property, which is now in that person's name, they will make some sort of contribution towards its upkeep if that is found to be necessary.
This Bill says in one particular section that with the consent of the local authority the local authority could become the guardian of such a monument. That seems to me to be an adequate provision to enable a local authority, if they so choose and if they have the mandate from the councillors in that local authority, to move to preserve something which they consider to be a national monument. There is no provision at the moment for members of Dublin City Council to say that they will make a contribution towards the cost of reinstating the derelict buildings along the eastern or southern flank of Mountjoy Square. If the Minister accepted this Bill in principle tonight Dublin Corporation could possibly do that. The newspapers as recently as yesterday spoke about the state of dereliction of many buildings in Dublin. I believe the city of Dublin would willingly contribute towards the restoration of those areas if they had the legal power. This Bill would enable a local authority to do something they cannot do at the moment.
I particularly regret that the Minister of State did not see fit to accept the Bill in principle. It was evident from the way he spoke that he simply saw the Office of Public Works might be made a present of a whole lot of buildings which they could not cope with. I can accept that, but I do not believe the provision should be turned down on the grounds that the Office of Public Works have not the capacity to respond or that the Commissioners of National Monuments feel that this would be an extraordinary burden on their already overburdened staff. If that is the nature of the resistance and the problem it should be said, and the Office of Public Works should look for additional staff or they should say that if a national monument is inhabited by a person, a family or a group of people, it should be taken into guardianship by the local authority and the local authority should be responsible for it.
The definition of a national monument in the context of a popular function will move further and further away from the idea of palaces, churches and fortresses to include more and more things of everyday use and familiarity because they are rightly part of our national heritage and deserve protection. They will be lived in and used in part and in whole. We have no protection for them at the moment.
The rate of the dereliction of buildings is such that between now and the end of the century many of them will go into decay particularly where large trucks are trundling through cities and towns and the level of air pollution is such that it will attack the fabric of those buildings. That pollutant attack on the fabric of buildings is well known to us. The National Library had to be substantially repaired because of the pollutant attack on the stonework. The Acropolis in Athens is under serious risk because of the traffic around it and the air pollution in Athens. These problems will not go away. If we have to wait for another ten years for a Bill to come from the Office of Public Works we are talking about another 10 to 15 years, to at least 1990, before we get some kind of response.
I do not know what the Minister can do between now and the time when the vote is taken on this, but some more substantial response is required from the Government of the day. This is a Fine Gael measure and it is for them to decide, I suggest, in discussion with the Minister of State, how it could be progressed. I am sure the mover of the Bill and Deputy Bruton would be more than prepared to sit down and discuss all the ways in which it can be done. I believe Deputy Donnellan is on record already——
That is correct.
——as making such an offer. Simply to turn it away on the basis that you are doing your own measure or you do not like some of the provisions in it without taking up the clear option of amending it, to say that you are preparing your own Bill and then to admit that you do not even have the heads of it agreed, is to indicate quite clearly that there is a legislative gap at present in our laws which is not being filled.
It is all the more galling that this Government party, from the Taoiseach down, tripped over themselves to get into the National Museum to see the Killenaule find and be photographed amply up beside it and celebrated the chance discovery of this find by what would be an illegal detection. There was nothing to prevent the person who found it from selling that object or giving it to somebody else, and given the current interest in Viking remains and in that era of European history——
Would the Deputy want us to bury it again?
Given that interest, it is quite positive that it would have found a very substantial price in the foreign market if it had been so sold. Fortunately, the people who did find it were sufficiently public-spirited to do what they did with it. I hope that they have been properly and adequately compensated and given due recognition for it. However, we have no guarantee that subsequent to that action, because there are a vast number of sites around the country, other people who are doing exactly the same are going to be so imbued with public spirit or a sense of obligation.
That is right.
It may be due to the previous incumbent of the Department of Foreign Affairs and perhaps not unrelated to the fact that the find was in Tipperary and not Roscommon, that it was well photographed, publicised and sent around in the journal Ireland Today, and that it was in the National Museum where, rightly, it provoked a lot of interest. The sense of self-confidence which this nation can derive from looking at works which have been made and fabricated in this country by our forefathers should be enhanced and encouraged.
During the European Architectural Year a lot of talk and rhetoric were put out by different organisations. One of the phrases that was carried through that period of 1976 was that a people or a State or a nation without a heritage was like a person without a memory. That is a very apt description. Would any of us willingly put our own memory at risk to the extent that our memory would be either capable of being mind-detected away from us or stolen or exported without our agreement? I do not think so. We are not talking about anything high-faluting or a minority interest that concerns a small portion of the country's population. The genuine interest and enthusiasm shown in the Killenaule find are an indication of the real desire there is for some positive action.
Undoubtedly the same could be applied to the question of Wood Quay. In this instance of the tragedy that was Wood Quay and its whole sorry, sad saga the local authority of which I am a member were duped systematically by the officials in the museum. I am using that verb carefully because I can recall vividly being told assuredly that there was nothing really of value on that site, yet within two years it was declared a national monument. The public must be informed of the requirement to publish the finds if one excavates. There is an idea among certain archaeologists that the national heritage is their particular trough from which they would systematically draw PhD or MA theses and the last thing one is supposed to do is to tell anybody about these finds or publish them so that the public might get at them. That is not a concept of a national heritage at all. It is like some private research project going on for their benefit with the exclusion of the public. There may be many reasons why a report on an excavation cannot be completed within a particular time. I have done research work and I know some of the difficulties attached to that. However, the systematic report back of the finds that a private individual, qualified or otherwise, has, by virtue of the licence granted to him or her, obtained on a national monument is an absolute essential. The finder should report back to the body who are accountable, this Assembly here, Oireachtas Éireann, and that has not been the case.
The members of Dublin City Council were treated with utter contempt by the professional archaeologists of that time for reasons which were not related to archaeology. If the truth were to be told about that occasion, it was because the vaults of the National Museum were full and could not take any more finds from Wood Quay that a decision was made in relation to its non-importance. There were other matters also and the difficulties were complex, and I use the adjective advisedly. Wood Quay was a sad saga for many of the people involved directly in it, and this House has heard enough of it to be aware of that. In the context of this legislation and Second Stage debate in relation to our reporting back and making information available and requiring the consent of the Houses of the Oireachtas before a national monument can be taken apart systematically, I would support that fully. Once a monument has been declared to be a national monument it is not, therefore, uniquely at the disposal of either well-intentioned or well-motivated civil servants or archaeologists. There must be some recourse back to the democratic process.
The Deputy has two minutes.
I urge strongly that that provision be incorporated in some way. In conclusion, I regret that we do not seem to be going to get a favourable response from the Government to this measure. However, I would hope that in the replies from subsequent speakers on the Government side, who have been briefed properly by the Minister of State, that the debate on this Bill will continue for some more time, they would indicate clearly (a) a realistic timetable of that debate and (b) what sections of this very useful legislation—well worked out as far as I can see leaving aside the technalities of it—would be incorporated in a Government Bill and what section would not be incorporated, and why. I welcome this Bill and I regret very much that it seems to be destined to an inevitable defeat.
I am reluctant to criticise a Bill being prepared by a colleague from the west of Ireland, Deputy Donnellan. This is the first Bill with which Deputy Donnellan has been associated here in the House and I regret that it is not quite the type of Bill that we would like to see going through. We have asked and will be asking for the withdrawal of this Bill because, as the Minister has stated, we are in the process of preparing a Bill which will be far more comprehensive and detailed than this rehashing of the former Act. I suppose this Bill came about basically because of the publicity about the finding of the hoard in Tipperary which was a tremendous boost for this country, and I am delighted that the Taoiseach and all the Ministers took such an interest on behalf of the State. I am proud that we have a Taoiseach who is involved with cultural as well as political matters. It is good for this country that this find is being promoted in the booklet Ireland Today by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
This Bill, which was drafted by Deputy Donnellan of the Fine Gael Party with the help of Deputy Bruton, would not be one which we would be inclined to support. The Minister of State, Deputy McEllistrim, and his Department are working very actively to prepare very detailed legislation. This situation came about owing to the use of metal detectors. Deputy Donnellan's Bill deals with the important matter of metal detectors. Treasure hunting with these devices has become one of the fastest growing hobbies throughout Europe. It is estimated that there are close on 1,500 treasure hunters in Ireland. I understand that a club was formed recently to bring these treasure hunters together. This may be a welcome development, as there will be a tendency for such a group to follow the example of other countries and adopt a code of practice which will embody respect for our national heritage, our monuments and sites.
My county, Roscommon, is well dotted with sites of an archaeological and historical nature and I would not be inclined to allow the use of these detectors in or near these sites. However, there are plenty of opportunities for the use of these metal detectors. On farming land there could be some pieces of treasure buried for many years which could be located. However, without legal restriction on the use of these instruments the position cannot be regarded as satisfactory.
The Minister of State has already stated that the existing legislation provides a reasonable level of protection to our monuments, and this applies even to the users of metal detectors. As things stand, they may not dig, or otherwise disturb the ground, anywhere in search of archaeological objects. Furthermore, the Broadcasting Authority Acts require that a licence be obtained to use radio transmission equipment which could and would include equipment of the metal detector class.
Does it include it now?
This is the question; I am making the case that it could, and it could be tested.
Has legal advice been obtained on that point?
I am not in a position to say, but in my view there is a case to be made that these detectors could come under the Broadcasting Authority Acts and this could be tested from that point of view. Anyway, it has not been tested. These detectors are not a major problem at this stage. I have not seen any being used in my constituency.
There is a great interest in these detectors and there will be a greater interest in future years. It could become a very useful and entertaining hobby for a lot of people but we would oppose their use in or near archaeological sites, particularly if they disturbed the ground or any part of the building, which of course is covered under the Acts at the moment. If the users of these metal detectors detect any sound they should report immediately to the National Monuments Section. Under no circumstances would I recommend that they interfere with the ground in the pursuit of these objects, because they could do an immense amount of damage. Any national monument taken into the care of the State is covered by law and anyone interfering with them would be liable to prosecution. That is the basic legal situation at the moment. I do not think there is any law barring the use of these metal detectors, provided they do not interfere with the actual site or the ground.
There is not much point in just taking a metal detector around if one cannot do something, if one is just going around taking readings. Is that what the Deputy thinks they are for?
There is a great interest in testing. I am not advising people to go around doing this, but if they happen to be carrying out their hobby near sites, they should not interfere with the ground.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Leyden should be allowed to make his own contribution.
There may be people interested in doing this, but I have not yet met anyone with a metal detector.
The Deputy said that there were 1,500 of them.
Deputy Leyden, without any help from Deputy Bruton.
We have 3½ million of a population at the moment and it is rising all the time, particularly since we came into office.
The Deputy will have to use a metal detector to find them, if his party stays in too long.
Deputy Donnellan proposes to raise the level of fines and to increase the penalties for failure to report, or incorrect reporting of, archaeological objects and for unlicensed archaeological excavation and, generally, for breaches of the provisions set out in his Bill. However, it would be desirable that penalties for all breaches of the National Monuments Acts should be in proportion to the offence and to each other. A piecemeal approach will only lead to anomalies where certain offences are subject to high fines and others of equal seriousness bear only minimal penalties. This is another argument in favour of a completely new Act instead of an ad hoc legislation of the type here proposed.
The Minister of State has assured the House that work on the drafting of new legislation is at an advanced stage. I consider that Deputy Donnellan's Bill should be withdrawn. Reading through this Bill, it is simply a rehashing and amendment of legislation which the Minister of State agrees, and I do too, should undoubtedly be updated. The Minister, with the detailed advice of all the experts in his Department, will be in a far better position to provide really good legislation than, with all due respect, Deputy Donnellan, with, I understand, legal advice from Deputy Bruton, whose hand was in the production of this legislation. As former Parliamentary Secretary in the Department of Education, le us be fair about it, Deputy Bruton did not do very much in the National Monuments Section.
I was not concerned with the National Monuments Section in the Department of Education.
It was the National Museum Section.
In the museum. Deputy Bruton, when he was in charge of the National Museum next door to this building, did very little for it. This is one area which needs special attention, this building which is very close to the Dáil.
I did more than anyone before me or since.
The Deputy should address his comments to the Minister.
I would certainly encourage the National Museum to decentarlise to the rural areas, where they could use many of the exhibits which are now buried deep down in the basement of Leinster House. Did Deputy Bruton ever go down and search among these exhibits and look at the actual conditions there?
I did, and I set up two exhibition centres, one in Castlebar in the west of Ireland, and nothing has happened since.
Only one speaker at a time. We cannot have two people addressing the House simultaneously.
In the constituency of Leitrim and Roscommon, or the new constituency of Roscommon and part of Galway, we are fortunate to have many national monuments. I pay a special tribute here today to the Minister of State, Deputy McEllistrim, whom I credit for work being started on Roscommon Castle in Roscommon town, the first work that has been carried out there for many years. Indeed, under the Coalition Government and again when the party of Deputy Donnellan and Deputy Bruton was in power they were not at all concerned about the national monuments in Roscommon. There was not one shilling spent in Roscommon, either on the fine Dominican Abbey or on Roscommon Castle.
The Deputy was not in the Fianna Fáil Party at that time.
We have Deputy L'Estrange back again.
The Deputy was not even in the Fianna Fáil Party then. He should not be so annoyed about it.
Deputy L'Estrange should not take part in the debate.
He was not even a supporter of Fianna Fáil at that time. Why should he be so annoyed?
Deputy L'Estrange should state that outside this House, where I might have a chance of recourse to law, if necessary.
Is that not great? The Deputy should not start annoying the House.
Deputy Leyden.
Deputy Leyden was an Independent until three months before he was elected.
I do not think my standing in the Fianna Fáil Party is part of this Bill.
I will call Deputy L'Estrange if he offers later.
It is in order to compliment the Minister of State, Deputy McEllistrim, who is doing a tremendous job in the national monuments section of the Department of Finance. Indeed his predecessor, Deputy Wyse, also did a very good job in that Department.
That is why he was sacked.
Indeed the combination of their efforts was responsible for having money allocated to my home town.
Deputy Jack Lynch was doing a good job and the Deputy's party got rid of him. They made a national monument out of him.
Would Deputy L'Estrange dry up for God's sake?
Indeed the Fine Gael Party, with their leader, Deputy FitzGerald, Deputies John Kelly and Bruton and Deputy L'Estrange himself will be very lucky if they retain their seats next time round. Deputy L'Estrange will be extremely lucky if he retains his seat in Westmeath the next time.
I might be a national monument after the next election.
Deputy Leyden on the Bill, and Deputy L'Estrange to be silent, please.
I must compliment the Minister of State. He is the one person who has been responsible for getting money down to my constituency to be spent on national monuments. Of course the Coalition during their period of office totally neglected our national monuments but, under the Fianna Fáil Party, we are taking renewed interest in our national heritage. We are the defenders of our national heritage and shall continue to be so. That is why the Fianna Fáil Bill will be a real one to protect our national heritage——
When it comes.
——with the advice of all the specialists in this area, people with whom I am personally associated, who are deeply involved in our national heritage, in our national monuments along with the involvement of the Minister of State who has taken to this Department, as the saying goes, like a duck to water. He has become really involved in this Department. Even though he has other responsibilities, such as drainage and so on, in respect of which he is doing very well indeed and was responsible for a major drainage scheme on the Boyle River, North Roscommon —a scheme which I understand is to start very soon—he still has time to involve himself in the national monuments section.
He will drain the Shannon next, That is a long time a national monument.
I shall invite the Minister to my constituency to view some of the fine work his men are doing there. I have had a lot of involvement through family connections with the national monuments section of this Department—my grandfather, father and brothers having been involved in stonemasons' work on national monuments. That is why I feel deeply committed to and involved in the preservation of our national monuments. I would support any decent Bill that would contribute to the preservation of our heritage but this Bill is a rehash only. I suppose it was produced just to grab some headlines for Deputies Donnellan and Bruton because God knows they need them. Perhaps they are cashing in on that because it is topical and the press might take note.
The Deputy should not provoke the Members of the Opposition, please; they are bad enough without that.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy L'Estrange needs very little provocation.
If Deputy Leyden gives me an inch I will look for a foot.
Deputy L'Estrange goes on about parties and everything else but he did not do much for Senator Cooney in his constituency the last time——
There is no section in the Bill about Senator Cooney.
Senator Cooney did three years' good work and will be back again. He saw that there was law and order in the country anyway.
Deputy L'Estrange will be out again if he does not remain quiet.
Senator Cooney will be back and the Deputy's party man will be gone. The same will happen in Roscommon.
Deputies, please. Deputy Leyden has a limited time only on this Bill.
Paddy Cooney will be back and the people will recognise his work.
It would appear that the Fine Gael Party are more interested in their future than in this Bill.
They have a lot in which to be interested.
Deputies, please. There are only five minutes remaining.
It is interesting that the Fine Gael Party should introduce this rehashed Bill into the House. They must be very satisfied with the fine work the Government are doing that they do not have any Bills on other subjects at this point. I am sure it is of great concern to the people of Westmeath, the people in Deputy L'Estrange's constituency. I am sure that people generally will be delighted to await a proper Bill to be prepared by the Government which will be introduced in due coure.
Again on the subject of national monuments I am asking the Minister to take over a monument at Ringdune, St. John's Castle, in County Roscommon one of the most historical sites in the country. When and if excavation takes place at that site I hope there will be finds there equal to those in Tipperary. We must remember the archaeological and historical finds, like the Cross of Cong, that have been made in Roscommon, examples of the fine workmanship of our predecessors in my county. I know the Minister of State is very sympathetic to Roscommon. If the necessary funds are made available I hope that the Board of Works excavating there will make discoveries equal to anything found in the past.
I am anxious also that work be carried out to Ballintubber Castle, near Castlerea, about 15 miles from Roscommon town.
Deputy Leyden should not go into individual cases in a Bill.
This Bill affords me an opportunity to highlight the work being done——
At any rate, not every monument in his constituency.
The Deputy should have got that into the prepared script also.
Deputy Leyden to continue on the Bill.
I am delighted to have such a knowledge of national monuments that I do not need any script from any side.
The Deputy should look into his own heart when he will know all about them.
I would say that I know more about them than does any Deputy on that side of the House.
If one does not blow one's own trumpet nobody else will.
Can Deputy L'Estrange not remain silent for five minutes when he comes into the House?
Not when one hears that hypocrisy, Deputy Leyden telling us that he knows more than anybody else in this House about them.
I know, Deputy, but there is the golden rule—and nobody knows it better than Deputy L'Estrange—repeated to him time and time again, of one speaker at a time.
This Bill gave me an opportunity to highlight the archaeological and historical sites in my constituency. It was in that regard I was attempting to demonstrate the work being done by the Minister of State. The Opposition have been criticising the Minister for not introducing a Bill. Just because they have introduced this tatty piece of legislation that will never have the chance of seeing the light of day they expect the Minister and his Department to rush into print in an endeavour to introduce something at the same time. Our view is that such a Bill requires detailed study. The Minister gave no specific date for the introduction of such a Bill but he said that it was in preparation.
It is like the drainage of the Shannon, it is on the long finger.
Would Deputy Leyden move the adjournment of the debate?
Debate adjourned.