Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Kemmy and Amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Enright is an alternative. I am suggesting, therefore, that amendments Nos. 1 and 2, by agreement, be discussed together and may be voted upon separately, if required.
National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986 [Seanad]: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 25, to delete "1700 AD" and substitute "1850 AD".
I am anxious that the period of time be extended because the year 1700 is not sufficient. It is in everybody's interest that it should be changed to 1850. The section includes all monuments in existence before 1700 or such later date as the Minister may appoint by regulation. I appreciate that the Minister has a certain amount of discretion to extend by ministerial order the period of time but there are many historical monuments that should be included and I ask the Minister to consider extending the period to include that.
I appreciate what the Deputy has in mind. There may be some confusion about the purpose of including the phrase "and also includes all monuments in existence before 1700 A.D." in the definition of "historic monument". The intention is that all monuments which were in existence before the date will be historic monuments by reason of their age and without regard to whether or not they have any architectural or historical interest. This does not mean that they must necessarily be preserved but it does mean that they are worthy of note and of being recorded and that consideration should be given to any proposal to remove or destroy them.
Since the commencement of the National Archaeological Survey in the sixties it has been accepted that any monuments which were in existence before 1700 A.D. should be recorded. The Survey of Urban Archaeology which was commenced in 1982 and which is now nearing completion also takes 1700 A.D. as the cut-off point. The selection of any date is an arbitary one but it will be seen that the year 1700 A.D. is now well rooted in archaeological practice in this country.
Of course all monuments of post-1700 A.D. which are associated with the commercial, cultural, economic, industrial, military, religious or social history are also historic monuments, and can be protected under this Act where such protection is warranted. Several such monuments are already in full State care as national monuments and if 1840 or 1850 is being taken as the end of the great classical revival movement in architecture, there is nothing in this legislation to stop us from picking out the best elements of this period which survive in order to protect them.
However, Deputies Kemmy's and Enright's amendments substituting 1840 and 1850 A.D. for 1700 A.D. would bring a very large section of the existing building stock of the country within the ambit of automatic protection and land the Commissioners of Public Works with an impossible task. Post-1700 buildings, as I have said, are not excluded but our protection of these has to be selective. Any monuments erected before 1700 will be given historic monument status and it can then be decided whether a preservation order is necessary on other buildings. The Bill gives sufficient discretion to the Commissioners to protect buildings, irrespective of age, and I regret I cannot accept the amendment.
Will the Minister agree that an antique is defined as anything made or constructed before 1840 and that 1700 is a bit too early? I believe 1840 might be a bit too early if it excludes a number of monuments and artefacts. I take the point that this would involve the Office of Public Works in costly expenditure in maintaining such monuments but at the same time there is a lack of alignment between the definition of an antique and what constitutes an historic monument.
In his own words, the Minister furnished the material proving our argument. He said that protection is already there for historic monuments built prior to 1700. He also said that many buildings built after 1700 do not come under this protection. There are magnificent buildings built after 1700 in many towns throughout the country which add character to those towns. I am aware that there are planning laws and that local authorities have issued statutory notices preventing people from interfering with a number of those buildings. Take Westport, for example. There are malls with beautiful buildings in that town which because of their historic connections come under the protection of this section.
I appreciate the Deputy's concern and hope similar concern will be shown by all our citizens with regard to artefacts, monuments and archaeological discoveries. The Bill defines "historic monuments" as "all monuments in existence before 1700 A.D.". Consequently the discretion of the commissioners is enshrined in law. They can decide whether a preservation order should be put on any monument irrespective of its age.
Our case is that to demand from the commissioners that everything before 1840 or 1850 would be automatically included as preserved historic monuments would be far too demanding and would place us in an impossible position because of the size of the task, deciding the necessary criteria and watching every planning application made throughout the country. As I said, the commissioners already have this discretion. We have agreed the definition of an historic monument and, given the flexible position and the civic responsibilities of statutory authorities and the public at large, these buildings are adequately protected. We are using 1700 A.D. as the standard year which all archaeological experts have agreed on, even the experts in the Council of Europe. We are setting a headline in this area. I regret I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, subsection (1) lines 25 and 26, after "regulations" to insert ", such regulations to be placed in draft before Dáil Éireann for approval".
In my view these regulations should be placed before Dáil Éireann for discussion, to be amended or rejected, as the House decides. I ask that the Minister considers placing such draft regulations before the Dáil for approval.
I appreciate what the Deputy is saying but we feel this is an unnecessary provision because it is covered under section 22 which states that "the laying of such regulation before the Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order ... is passed by either such House ...". As this is already enshrined in the Act, the amendment is unnecessary. Therefore, I regret I cannot accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
This is the definition section. Under the definition of "archaeological area" the commissioners will be able to decide that any area around an historic monument is an archaeological area. I am not sure how the Minister will be able to restrict this definition but it is so loose at present that the commissioners have carte blanche to define any area, no matter how large, as an archaeological area. That will cause problems in the years to come and it gives too much power to the commissioners. I would like “archaeological area” to be more closely defined.
Before we move from section I, as we are dealing with definitions, I am concerned about the time allotted to the discussion of this Bill. There is a very important amendment to section 23——
We will take that when we reach it.
If there was agreement of the House, could we take it now because it is a very important feature?
Everybody feels his amendment is very important.
It is not my amendment. It is in the name of Deputy Kemmy. It is important because it touches on the exclusion of churches like Rush, St. Mary's Place and many important ecclesiastical churches.
We should trim our thoughts in respect of our contributions and perhaps we will reach it in our own good time. If we start jumping ahead that would not be conducive to good order. However, we should bear in mind that we do not have a great deal of time but if contributions are brief and to the point we should reach this amendment. I am putting the question.
I appreciate what Deputy McCreevy said and we have taken that into account. The commissioners will at all times try to reach agreement with the property owners after negotiations have taken place. We have recourse to compulsory purchase orders if we cannot get agreement but we hope we would get agreement in most cases having taken expert archaeological advice into account, having had discussions with Bord Fáilte and having taken into account the importance of a monument from an archaeological and tourist point of view.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 11, after "person", to insert "shall not own or use a detection device without licence and".
This amendment touches on one of the most centrally crucial and important provisions in the Bill. I wish to comment on the regrettable lack of time made available to discuss this — or any other — amendment in the Bill. It became apparent yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dukes, his Chief Whip, Deputy O'Brien and the former spokesperson in this area, Deputy Doyle, believed we had almost completed Committee Stage and for that reason had agreed to an hour and a half to discuss it. It was not until the position was clarified, that it was made clear that we had not even embarked on Committee Stage, that they realised their error. It is absolutely appalling that we have an hour and a half to discuss about 40 amendments.
This amendment seeks to tighten the whole area of the use of metal detection devices and to ensure that no person shall own or use such a device without a licence from the Minister. The current law is that anyone can own, sell or use a metal detector. Section 2 seeks to lay down regulations prohibiting their use in certain areas. At present the law regarding treasure trove is weighted in favour of the treasure hunter and it is a licence for wholesale destruction of our archaeological sites. Two people in the State uncovered a hoard using these devices and are now in possession of property to the value of £5.5 million. When the case was mentioned in the Supreme Court, counsel for the Government sought an early date for hearing on the grounds that there was a serious increase in the invasion of archaeological sites by treasure hunters using these devices.
As long as there is an incredible financial incentive to people to search for treasure, it will be impossible under section 2 to regulate the position. Most of our archaeological sites are in remote areas and the area from which the treasure to which I referred was recovered is a raised piece of ground in the middle of a bog, far removed from the public view. To a great extent they are not marked and the Bill is trying to confront this problem. Many of them carry plaques, warnings and signs but in the case in question although signs were displayed they were ignored. Where there is a broad entitlement to own or use a detector, it will be very difficult for the passing observer, a concerned member of the public or a garda, to identify a licensed dig.
It appears that members of the clergy have been colluding in ravaging archaeological sites for export as reported in a recent case in Sligo. Counsel, quite rightly, emphasised this position to the Supreme Court when seeking an early hearing for determination of the issue. We can only hope that the ultimate decision will be to our benefit but if you take into account the difficulty in policing the sites and the unbelievable financial incentive to treasure hunters, it is obvious that unless there are severe restrictions and regulations on the use of detection devices, this wholesale ravaging will continue.
It must be acknowledged that legitimate pursuits are involved in the use of metal detectors. Metal detector groups are responsible in their approach and we are not seeking to ban them. However, until the law is resolved in our favour, the Minister should restrict the availability of detection devices. That is why the Minister should accept this amendment so that he would have immediate control of the issue of licences to all persons, irrespective of where they will be used. That would ensure that the Minister or his Department would know exactly where every detection device is and who owns it. Through a registration procedure easily introduced the device could be traced to the owner if found in use at any site in contravention of the law. That kind of scheme is used in many other areas of social legislation, for example, the regulation of firearms and, more recently, the control of dogs. It may seem like wielding the big stick but, in view of the unsatisfactory legal position at present, the Minister must recognise that to allow the general, unfettered issue of licences for these devices can only lead to continued ravaging and trespass of our very important archaeological sites.
I am grateful to Deputy McCartan for putting down this amendment because it gives me an opportunity to speak on the Bill. One can take the view that we must have major restrictions in this area but they would prevent innocent people using metal detectors from enjoying themselves,
I know that my views on this matter would not be in agreement with those expressed by other Members but this is draconian legislation which will squeeze out the innocent lobby. Some Members seem to be under the impression that there are hundreds of people with metal detectors trying to make a fortune out of buried treasure but most of them are genuinely interested in their heritage and it is a hobby——
Does the Deputy really believe that?
I know many of them and some could be Deputy Doyle's friends. They are not trying to make money, most of them pursue it as a hobby. Deputy McCartan said that metal detectors should be issued only under licence but that is a very illiberal view. The Bill is bad enough without inserting that provision. We have lost the run of ourselves by getting so worked up over this matter. Indeed, these artefacts would still be in the ground if the metal detectors had not located them. The law should have been strengthened in other areas so that people who find treasure-trove could not dispose of it, that it would have to be given to the State. I understand the purpose of the Bill but we have gone the wrong way about it.
Many people innocently involved with detection devices will end up giving X number of months' notice before they can pursue their particular hobby. If an area is defined as an archaeological area, one could find that a farmer would have to give perhaps ten months' notice before he could carry out works of drainage, or reclamation, or even cultivation. In this Bill fines of £1,000 and on indictment of £50,000 are mentioned. In terms of the limited number of people who are out to get money out of the system the effect on innocent people is too drastic. Any artefacts or treasures found should become the property of the State. According to the amendment put down by Deputy McCartan, people using metal detectors would have to have a licence. That is totally illiberal. It will end up with everybody having a registration number and there will be no freedom. There are some people left in this country who believe that we should be free to pursue our own interests any way we like without contravening the overall common good.
Rubbish.
I do not like this legislation. It is a sledgehammer to be used on something very small. This could be done in a totally different way. Those are my thoughts on the Bill before the House.
I agree entirely with the amendment as proposed by Deputy McCartan and would be appealing to the Minister to take that one on board. It is the single most significant amendment of the long list which appears before us today. The success or otherwise of this Bill will depend on whether we have taken it on board. Deputy McCreevy has made a fairly good case for people who use metal detectors and has referred in detail to the amount of damage done by people who use them in the vicinity of archaeological sites and who remove goods to sell them. The damage done by such people is well catalogued and well known and cannot be more deplored than it has been already by speakers in the House on Second Stage of the Bill. However, the Deputy is ignoring the damage done by people who take metal detectors to archaeological sites and who do irreparable damage, making it impossible for archaeologists to build up a case history of the site. Irreparable damage is done by inexperienced people using metal detectors on sites even if their intention is never to remove objects to sell them. We cannot ignore that kind of damage. We cannot succeed in the aims and objectives of this Bill if we continue to ignore it. For that reason as well as the well catalogued damage done by people who remove objects and sell them either at home or abroad, I shall be fully supporting the amendment put down by Deputy McCartan.
I am satisfied that the section is strong enough in itself to prevent the blatant and indiscriminate use of metal detectors. My judgment is somewhat coloured in that I am totally opposed in principle to the indiscriminate use of metal detecting devices. At the same time, I can see that the legislation must enable metal detectors to be used in certain cases, perhaps in areas of prospecting, mining and so on. Overall, my view would be to ban the use of metal detectors by untrained persons. This is really the crunch of the matter. With the best will in the world, enthusiastic amateurs can use these devices and — let us not kid ourselves about this — essentially the purpose is to try to unearth treasure, sell that treasure and get the maximum award possible for it. This is the motivation.
That is not the motivation of many people.
I would disagree with that. The motivation in looking for treasure is to find treasure. I would be delighted if it stemmed from some wish to present this type of treasure to the National Museum but I would not be founding my remarks on fact if I said that archaeological treasures, coins or artefacts of that kind are presented to the museum.
They are.
This is a tete-à-tete.
The Deputy should take this up at a party meeting.
Could I just make my point? I am going to put some quite alarming facts before the House as regards the amount of treasure that has been found and which is — I shall not say in private collections — but being hoarded by people who would not have any great interest in the treasure they found. Would it surprise the House to know that there is a particular case of over 50,000 coins having been unearthed? These would be a sprinkling of Irish coins, mediaeval coins, English coins and so on. The National Museum prides itself on having the best numismatic collection of Irish coins in Europe, but there are rare varieties of coins that are yet to be discovered. We could take the example of the mint of Carlingford which has yet to be discovered. Unless hoards are presented or offered to the Museum, there is no way of assessing the type of archaeological area or community which existed around the place of discovery. It is not just a question of taking the treasure out of the ground but of assessing the community involvement. Coins can be a tremendous asset to archaeologists and historians for dating purposes, in finding out how our forefathers lived and the cultural and social activities carried on in particular areas, no matter what part of the country one is talking about.
I support much of what Deputy McCartan has said but, unfortunately, it would not be workable to ban the absolute use of metal detectors. I would urge that a system of licensing and compulsory training of some sort in the usage of metal detectors under the strict control and supervision of archaeologists be instigated. The Minister has a golden opportunity of setting about a type of community monument watch scheme under which our national monuments would be guarded by people living in local communities. These are the people who will identify those who come into areas using metal detectors and causing damage in these localities. A great amount of archaeological pieces of pottery and items of gold has been unearthed and the people who have taken these items without reporting their finds to the museum are not collectors in the true sense. They are just waiting until they can devise a method of selling these items abroad. I would urge the Minister to hurry the legislation which will prevent the exportation of such finds and will identify the items which must be reported to the museum. It might not be realised in the House but it is a fact that people from other countries who would not innocently use metal detectors come here and use them for gain and they could not care less for our national heritage or for our monuments. They wilfully destroy in order to profit. One example is the destruction of Clonmacnoise Abbey where one of the tablets was stolen and taken out of the country. There is a whole litany of examples where this type of damage has been done.
It would be a national disgrace if the Derrynaflan Chalice leaves the country. It could leave the country, judging from the way some of the decisions are coming from the courts. I do not know how a figure of £5.5 million was put on that treasure. It cannot be evaluated in money terms. It could be four times that value, or ten times that value. Legislation must protect such items. Deputy McCreevy should know that the metal detector in that case was used on someone else's property. It was a national monument, but the land in question was owned by somebody else. I agree with the Deputy's point about draconian laws but private property must be protected. The way the law stands at the moment someone could come into the Deputy's back yard with a metal detector and work away and be the owner of whatever he finds. That is very unsatisfactory. This section of the Bill is of critical importance and must provide our authorities with a strong arm necessary to control this situation which has got out of hand. It started off as an innocent pursuit but now it is being pursued by people who are just in it for monetary gain.
I appreciate that there is a lobby for the use of metal detectors. Perhaps Deputy McCreevy did us a service by speaking for that lobby in such a forthright manner. I am against curtailing freedoms. I like to see people enjoying hard won freedoms but there is another side to the story on which Deputy McCreevy did not touch. This side was alluded to by Deputy Brady and Deputy McCartan. The cases have been well publicised. However, there are innocent uses of metal detectors. A television programme last week showed where unemployed people in Britain used metal detectors in seaside towns to pickup coins and so on. There was no ulterior motive other than to pass the time. Other people use metal detectors for different reasons. People have gone into ancient sites and have enriched themselves at our expense. Our national monuments and treasures are owned by the people and they should not be plundered by individuals. Nobody would be against the people whom Deputy McCreevy describes as having innocent pastimes but unfortunately we cannot legislate to take care of every case. In this case there is a balance between absolute freedom and some restrictions and the balance lies in favour of Deputy McCartan whose amendment was designed to protect our heritage and to cut out some of the abuses I have mentioned.
I will not prolong my contribution because there are 44 amendments to this Bill, some of which are very important to me.
On consideration of the section, I find that there are adequate safeguards in it. I appreciate that for some people who use metal detectors the only motive is profit. There is a considerable amount of greed involved but the numbers who would do such a thing are small. If the section is enforced rigidly it will provide the necessary safeguards. The amendment is too restrictive. It should not be necessary to have a licence to own a metal detector.
There has been a lot of talk about the Derrynaflan Chalice and its finders, Mr. Webb and his son-in-law. They have come in for a lot of criticism but in fairness to them the day after they found the chalice and recognised it as an item of value they brought it to the National Museum. As regards compensation, they have pursued their case through the courts. Deputy McCartan is a lawyer and he will have to admit that everything they have done has been within the law.
Trespass on land would not be within the law. The stealing of someone else's property is not within the law.
That is not certain. My understanding of the court case is that Judge Blayney found they were not trespassing.
The Chair is not impressed by the manner in which the courts are overshadowing everything we do here. Let us act independently of the courts.
At least they brought their treasure to the National Museum on the following morning. We in this House should recognise that if items are found there should be some reasonable compensation for the finders. If we are too rigid some of our most valued possessions and historic items are likely to be smuggled out of the country to Britain or to America. We should address ourselves to the payment of reasonable compensation. Resonable compensation is paid in Britain for items that are found. We have a responsibility to face up to this aspect. This will cause much controversy. Vast numbers of very valuable items have been smuggled out of Italy and Greece particularly. If we suppress rewards or give only very small rewards we will encourage people to remove valuable items from the country.
There is a belief that there are valuable items in many areas where excavation has not been carried out. The Wood Quay office blocks were built on top of a very valuable archaeological site.
Could the Deputy concentrate his mind on whether metal detectors should be licensed?
Certainly. There were valuable items of an historical nature in Wood Quay and nobody will ever know to what extent they were there because it is too late to find out now. Before land reclamation and such work is carried out in areas where there are any doubts in regard to historical items preservation orders should be issued as a matter of urgency. Such factors as machinery, fertilisers and land reclamation can do untold damage to items. I have considered the amendment Deputy McCartan has proposed but I am confident that the section as outlined will meet the problem.
The licensing or otherwise of Mr. Webb's metal detector would not have changed the situation. The same applies in the case of Wood Quay. I do not support the amendment, not because I do not support fully the sentiments of its mover but because I do not think it will achieve any more than the objectives of the Bill as already outlined. It will do nothing to improve the objective of this section which is to protect our archaeological heritage from the ravages of perhaps the uninitiated, or which are perhaps deliberately done. I will not go into that this morning. The same damage can be done to archaeological objects below the ground, whether they are in archaeological sites or otherwise, by any detector and regardless of whether it is licensed. The important thing we are trying to achieve is the apprehension of the illegal use of those detectors and of the illegal users of those detectors. Hopefully the law as we are proposing it now will be enforced. This discussion will be totally superfluous unless the law is enforceable and is then enforced.
I do not support the amendment even though I support the sentiments behind it. I totally disagree with Deputy McCreevy's enunciation of the situation. Would that it was as he pointed out but that is not my experience. There are many innocent people who use metal detectors, whether beach-combing, in their back gardens or elsewhere. This is done quite innocently and it is an interesting hobby. Unfortunately there are some people — and I think there are more than what we pretend — who have metal detectors purely for monetary gain and are quite happy to destroy archaeological areas and sites in the hope of retrieving even one object that would be in the Derrynaflan category in terms of value.
I accept the section of the Bill as it is. I do not think that licensing metal detectors would help us achieve anything more. If I did think so I would have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
I recognise that there is a problem regarding this area. Enough people have spoken on one side of the argument so it is important for someone to give a little of the other side of the argument.
The devil's advocate.
Why not change the law or tighten it so that items which are found would be the property of the State? An interesting point was made by Deputy Doyle, for whom I have great admiration in all senses of that word. If someone finds an item of the importance of the Derrynaflan Chalice and does not have a licence he will not be likely to report the find and take it to the museum, running the risk of being fined up to £50,000. That is the flaw in the logic of what Deputy Doyle is saying. There is an analogy in this that relates to the presence or non-presence of oil off our shores. Some people take the view that if oil is out there we should leave it there and not give anybody the chance of taking it out. Other people believe — and this is being expounded by the Minister for Energy — that if it is there we should try to get it ashore because it would bring some productivity with it. The logic of what is being said in the House in relation to the use of metal detectors is that it would be better to leave artefacts in the ground, let them corrode away with no one ever finding them. Does anyone think that the archaeologists we have had during the past 20 years would ever have found the Derrynaflan Chalice——
Yes, they would——
Maybe in 100 years time when neither Deputy Doyle nor anyone else in this House would be around to worry about it.
——and perhaps a lot along with it that was destroyed in its discovery.
We could argue on another day whether or not items would be better left in the ground. Many people would be of the view that it is better to have these items displayed in the National Museum. This legislation is not going to drive the metal detectors lobby away but it is going to drive them underground. Then when items of importance are found by a person who has not got a licence he will not put the objects in the National Museum and face a fine of up to £50,000. This legislation will drive the users of metal detectors further underground and the problem will get worse. That is the flaw in the logic of this Bill which was introduced by the last Government and supported by this Government.
I would be very remiss in moving the amendment if I did not answer some of the remarks made by Deputy McCreevy. By his admission, the lobby he first sought to speak on behalf of are persons who are no strangers to the underworld to which they would return. This underlines the sense of this amendment. I see the licensing provision as a temporary measure; I do not see it as something that would be there forever. In the current climate of events at least we should be addressing a bit more carefully what we propose to legislate for.
The Deputy has suggested that a better way to go about it is by making a provision allowing for anything found to become the property of the State. Clearly he has not had any consideration to the litigation that is currently pending before the courts and the implications of that litigation. On Second Stage the point was made that we may at the end of the day be facing constitutional considerations — the old hoary question of the rights to private property as enshrined in the Constitution. That is central to the question. The matter is sub judice and I have not sought to trespass on it nor do I want to. However, there is a big question to be answered on another day when another tribunal has delivered its judgment on the existence or otherwise of the right to treasure trove or the right of the State to recover property. No provision in any Act in the interim period without a Supreme Court determination, or a constitutional determination through a referendum, can be envisaged or encountered.
I am of the school — to borrow the word of the Deputy — that these items are better left in the bloody ground if that is where they are until such time as they are located in a responsible and learned fashion by people who know what to do and how to interpret their location. This point has been made already. It is far better, and I can say it unequivocally from what little bit of information I have, that there was more damage done to the Derrynaflan hoard from the time it was removed from the hole until it found its way into the hands of those at the National Museum than was ever done in the centuries it lay in the bog where it had been purposely hidden. If we think that this issue is not of serious consequence I should like to take a moment to advise the House of the extent — it is not even documented here — of archaeological pillage in a country which is now no more than a £28 air flight away from us. Let us make one point clear. In Europe and indeed elsewhere, Ireland is known as a soft spot for archaeological pilfering and excavation in an illegal and unsupervised fashion. If because the information is ignored by Deputies we do not want to talk about the sins of our own in this regard, at least we can take up the point of foreign intervention. The incident in Sligo of the standing stones originated from a potential purchaser in America. The grand larceny of items from Clonmacnoise was perpetrated by a non-national who went into court and said he did not really know where he was or what he was doing and on a laughable fine of £50 he was sent home.
In Britain the archaeological preservation interests have organised themselves under a campaign known as STOP. They represent right across the board the Association of County Archaeological Officers, the Council of British Archaeology, the Museums' Association, The British Archaeological Trust, The Society of Museum Archaeologists, The United Kingdom Institute for Conservation and Young Rescue which is for children aged between nine and 16 years who are interested in archaeology. These organisations have organised themselves together to try to stop the wholesale invasion of archaeological sites by treasure hunters in that country. The litany is incredible. Of the number of areas in Wales and throughout the country, one is worth recounting in detail, namely, the Mildenhall site in Wiltshire which involved a coin hoard, to which Deputy Brady has referred. The coin hoard was discovered by treasure hunters who removed it and in order to retrieve some useful information about the hoard a controlled rescue excavation was immediately carried out by archaeologists. The following night police apprehended three treasure hunters on the same site. The next day more intruders hacked away the remaining undisturbed layers in the region of the hoard. The site was disturbed to a depth of 2 feet 4 inches and important historical evidence, including part of a Roman floor, was destroyed and the remains of not one, but two hoards were hopelessly jumbled. That is the kind of thing that is going on. If we continue as at present we will be subjected to an invasion of people during the summer months coming over and engaging in this activity.
Having laid the ground for the case I will refer very briefly to the amendment and address myself to those Deputies on the far side of the House, and indeed on the Fine Gael side also, as to what is being proposed and suggested. What is proposed is a simple scheme as exists in many other areas of social legislation seeking to control deleterious objects or substances. Throughout our social code of legislation we have regulations seeking to control or restrict the use of a proliferation of devices. In practical terms what does it mean? It means that if Mr. Webb, yesterday, today or tomorrow, went to his local Garda station or Department office to ask for a licence he would be told under no circumstances would he get a licence to use or own a metal detector device. It would mean that any person in this State, for the time being, who wanted to use a metal detector device would have to account to some local authority, or person in authority, as to why he wanted it, what was the specific project in mind for its use and what would be the period and the location the activity would take place. It would afford the Minister through his authority to lay down conditions, to say, for example — and this is where we could meet Deputy McCreevy's requirement — that as a condition in the trade-off for allowing the licence that the person should undertake to surrender what is found to the local authority or the issuing authority. There is nothing to stop a private individual, however they secure their rights to private property, from contracting in advance to surrender them should they uncover something of importance.
I should like to say to the Fine Gael side that there is sense to this whole scheme because it allows information at local level for the supervisory authority, be it the Garda Síochána, boards of works, commissioners and their agents in an area, to know what should be going on, where and when. It arms them with information which enables them to know whether someone, perhaps, noticed in the distance, or reported in a phone call is legitimately pursuing an exercise. All of this may well be draconian, tough and hard but in the balance of interests the preservation of our historical and archaeological history is crucial and paramount. It is important to us but it has been abused in the past and unless we take some action we will lose very seriously.
I do not want to be alarmist but I will underline what I am saying by pointing out that in the current climate where the treasure hunter is in a position of being protected by law, it is folly in the extreme at least not to consider introducing restricting legislation. Who knows when the issue is resolved, hopefully to our advantage, at a future date, we can come back here and say that the financial incentive, the impetus and the motivation have gone and we can now relax on the supervision and licensing procedures. I would have no objection to that. I urge Deputies to have a rethink on this matter and to consider accepting the amendment. Finally, perhaps the Minister when replying to my remarks, will take the opportunity to indicate if any of the amendments on the table are——
Deputy McCartan, may I advise the House that notwithstanding our earlier expressions of concern and resolution about time we have given now in excess of 45 minutes to one amendment. I am just advising the House of that but it is a matter for the House to decide. Deputies are rambling into areas that are not specific to what should be discussed. One speaker seems to be as irrelevant as the other.
Thank you very much.
As long as I have advised the House now of that situation and that the Deputy has given——
I take exception to that.
The Deputy can take any exception she likes.
Many of us here are extremely interested in this topic.
So am I, so is the Chair.
In relation to the contributions, perhaps some speeches were more relevant to Second Stage but everybody here is concerned.
Perhaps the Chair could point out that I had responsibility for the area when the Derrynaflan Chalice was found. The Chair is just reminding the House that, as everybody appreciates, time is scarce and we have amendments by other Deputies. Deputy Enright has many amendments down and I was hoping that we might give some time to other amendments rather than to devote our time to one. The House can decide what it likes after that.
I want to make two simple points. Deputy McCartan said there was sense to his scheme. I think there is also common sense to his scheme. Common sense would tell us that if metal detectors could be held only under licence we would have fewer metal detectors and that in itself would minimise the risk.
It does not follow.
It could be made to follow. Secondly, the very act of having to take out a licence would impose a certain discipline and a certain sense of responsibility. We should all work to ensure that young, middle-aged or older people, who have a natural curiosity about objects of this nature and who have a sense of discovery and exploration, are encouraged to join local historical and archaeological societies who have done a great deal of good in their own regions during the years. That could and should be done, Thirdly, may I repeat the point I made very badly at the beginning of my contribution. I think we have all grossly underestimated the amount of damage that has been and is being done to archaeological sites by untrained people. These amateurs go on to sites with no thought at all of lifting or selling anything or making a profit. They give no thought to anything except the pleasure they derive from using these detectors or using these instruments. I think they have done untold damage which as yet has not been highlighted. The matter of profit and export has been highlighted by the press and the other aspect has been ignored. However, it is just as real and just as damaging in the long term and it must not be and cannot be ignored. Untold damage is being done on sites by people like this and I can see no way, except the way suggested by Deputy McCartan, of dealing with this. The situation is so serious that if we must err at this time we must err in the direction in which Deputy McCartan is going. Let the pendulum swing to balance later on.
It is my impression that this legislation is being taken very seriously by the Government. They are putting it through very quickly because they realise its application is so urgent if what we have is to be salvaged. It is my impression that this will stay on the Statute Book for a long time. That being so, I think we better accept the reality of the situation and copperfasten what we are trying to do.
Deputy McCartan mentioned that he would see the licence as a temporary or interim measure. I think, and I am sure my colleagues would agree, that the Bill is an interim measure and it is important that it is seen to be so. It is important to differentiate between the adventurer and the speculator, who goes out wilfully to steal our national assets. This type of plundering must be stopped. I am satisfied that section 2 prevents the unauthorised use of metal detectors, as Deputy Doyle said, if the law is enforced. That is the bottom line. I am surprised that this type of amendment has been tabled by Deputy McCartan. It has been described as draconian and I would agree with that description. It is also unworkable. We should not enter into the whole question of licences if it interferes with human freedom. Deputy Kemmy said that he treasures the freedom of the individual: I am aware that he does and so do I. I feel we should not in any way go down this road. The Bill is an interim measure and we should try to deal with it as quickly as possible.
One point that has been stressed during this debate is that the State, and I address this point to the Minister, must become more actively involved in excavation works and legal metal detection of our archaeological objects because there is a wealth of objects to be found under the ground and in the sea. This is the message which comes from this debate. I believe it is time to move on from this amendment. I hope we can deal with this Bill today. However, I could not agree with this amendment and I am surprised it comes from a Deputy who professes to be a liberal.
I appreciate very much the sincere sentiments expressed by so many speakers on all sides. I appreciate their commitment to the matter. I feel that to require persons to obtain a licence before acquiring a detection device would be going too far and basically it would be impracticable. It would also take the commissioners out of their particular area of responsibility. There are many legitimate uses for metal detectors, such as for tracing pipes and cables. It is not the intention that the Commissioners of Public Works, in their role as the national monuments authority, should become involved in controlling the use of metal detectors for purposes other than for searching for archaeological objects.
Metal detectors are used in many other areas and we would be adopting a role which would be more relevant to the Departments of Communications, the Environment and Energy if we were to accept the amendment as proposed. I will not be recommending it. I do not think it would be operable or feasibe to accept the amendment now proposed. It would also mean that we would have to have a double licensing provision. First a licence would be required to own or use a metal detector or a device in any instance — that would be putting the commissioners into a totally new role — and consent would then be required in order to use or be in possession of the device at a protected site or to use it elsewhere for the purpose of searching for archaeological objects. A person who wishes to use a metal detector to trace cables in an archaeological area would, therefore, require a licence to own the detector and a consent to use it. We must be practical in our approach. The restrictions we are imposing in the Bill go much further than those in many other countries. We are setting a headline in the control of these devices and I am confident the provisions we are making will be adequate, without imposing an impossible administrative, burden on the Commissioners of Public Works.
Many speakers have referred to the Derrynaflan case. The position is that one item of law was decided and that decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court and, consequently I do not want to comment on it. Several speakers have raised constitutional issues regarding the right to private property. In my Second Stage speech I stated that this Bill was an interim measure. The main factor which inhibited me from introducing a more comprehensive Bill is the Derrynaflan case which is at present being heard in the Supreme Court. Until that case is finally decided, we will not know what the law is regarding ownership of items which were hitherto considered to be treasure-trove and, therefore, the property of the State. When we receive the judgment of the Supreme Court we will decide how we should proceed with further amendments of the law. I imagine that a far more comprehensive provision will then be required than exists at present. For instance, it may be necessary to provide not only for articles which are unlawfully excavated but also for articles found in circumstances where no breach of the law is involved.
Deputy McCreevy and others have alluded to the provisions in this Bill for a maximum fine of £50,000 for an offence involving the use of a metal detector in contravention of this Bill. This will be a very serious deterrent for anyone proposing to use a metal detector for the purposes of searching for archaeological objects. While some people have come upon hoards of great value most metal detector users never find valuable treasure and they will be deterred by the level of fines imposed as a result of the passage of this Bill. Many reports are received by the OPW and the National Museum of the use of metal detectors. This shows that there are many concerned people around the country who will ensure that any illegal uses will in future be reported. I consider this a practical, legislative approach which offers an operable and a fair and equitable balance between those who must use metal detectors in certain cases and others who would wish to misuse them. Consequently, I believe this section is sufficient and I regret I must decline the amendment.
Perhaps the Minister has taken me wrongly on a number of points. The first is in terms of seeking to draw the commissioners away from their primary area of responsibility as envisaged in the regime. It is not necessarily suggested that a licence in the first instance to own or use should emanate from the commissioners.
On a point of order, are we concluding the entire proceedings?
We are, in seven minutes.
That was the agreement made between the two Whips, as I pointed out at the outset, on a misunderstanding.
Deputy McCartan dealt with that at length earlier.
And was prevented from so doing. Deputy McCartan, without interruption.
In the first instance the licensing could come, as it does in many other areas, from the Garda Síochána who are well equipped to deal with this kind of thing and do so in many instances as I have outlined such as licences for firearms and dogs and licences related to the Misuse of Drugs Act regulations. Right across the board there is a whole range of ways in which they can do it.
If we are to amend this Bill we will be asking the commissioners to take the responsibility. We cannot just amend a Bill and leave ourselves without clear criteria as to who——
The Minister will have power further on in the Bill for the purpose of regulations and there is nothing to prohibit him from using those regulations to identify someone other than the commissioners or their agents. The commissioners can appoint agents and the like to carry out work on their behalf. There is nothing to stop them in that respect. It could be the Garda Síochána for and on behalf of the Commissioners. It is not an insuperable problem.
The Minister has suggested that it is a double licensing system and that it is incongruous and difficult to carry out. Street trading comes to mind immediately and the regulation of people who want to peddle their wares on the streets of Dublin. Any street trader in Moore Street selling flowers, fruit or anything else must get a double licence, a licence from the Department of the Environment and a licence from the local authority. It works reasonably well, so these are not serious impediments.
I hope that our interim scheme as envisaged in this Bill will be no longer than a couple of months and that by the new session of this House the Minister or someone on the Government side will be in a position to introduce very comprehensive legislation. It is hoped that decisions in other places will run in our favour, but I am concerned about the interim period. We need greater controls. In pursuing this I am prepared to accept that in the range of liberty as opposed to preservation I will allow the accusation that I am illiberal and for preservation.
The House must recognise that the Irish Association of Professional Archaeologists have recommended the establishment of a regional rescue excavation system to the OPW. That might not be realised but it is a fact, and I am happy to present that documentation to the Minister for his perusal.
I agree with the general thrust of the provisions here so far as metal detectors are concerned, but the only real remedy will be when we strengthen our laws whereby artefacts over a certain age automatically become the possession of the State if the State wants them. The real damage is being done by professional predators who are out there with their metal detectors seeking to gain commercial benefit for themselves. What is provided, interim measure or not, is satisfactory for the time being. I do not agree with the Minister of State that it is an interim measure because we await the outcome of the Derrynaflan case. We do too much of that kind of thing. We should pre-empt the outcome and we should introduce our legislation irrespective of what is happening there so that we do not suffer the loss as we may if the court case goes against us. I ask the Minister of State and the commissioners to exercise common sense in regard to licensing when there are licences issued because many people are involved in this sort of thing. For instance, many people are scouring the lakes with the aid of various metal detectors. I presume people aided with them were responsible for finding the Lough Kinale Book shrine, one of the marvellous treasures we now have in our National Museum. If we wait for the National Museum or the official scouring of all of the lakes it will take another 1,987 years before we get around there and the artefacts will be deteriorating. We should exercise a tremendous amount of common sense in the issuing of the licences. What the Minister of State said is absolutely right, local people have an interest in the preservation of their monuments and artefacts and of our heritage for our great collections, and I believe that they will report the illegal use of metal detectors.
Overall, this Bill is a very great advance and very badly needed. It will rectify matters, but finally one must think in terms of ensuring, by constitutional change or otherwise, that it is organised so that artefacts over a certain age automatically become the possession of the State. Constitutional change may be necessary in this regard, but this will get rid of the high powered, low profile operators who are doing this purely for the sake of treasures turned into money for themselves.
About four efforts have been made to have this legislation passed through the Dáil and about three Governments have fallen in the meantime.
(Interruptions.)
On the last two occasions the Government fell before the Bill was completed. We can have a referendum on 16 July with the general election.
At least this Bill will be passed today before anything happens tonight. This section was part of the section introduced originally by Deputy Doyle in the Seanad and it was adequately and fully debated in the Seanad.
I would point out to Deputy McCartan that the section as outlined here would have prohibited the people involved in the Derrynaflan Chalice case from being on the site in question. The Minister in bringing in this section — Deputy Doyle had responsibility for it — closed that loophole. I congratulate the Minister in having this section which will prevent such happening again. The site would have been off limit and the people would have been prevented from entering it.
Whether their detector was licensed or not.
It was not policed, that was the problem.
I take the point. The one problem is policing this. I urge on the Minister that he has a very great obligation to make sure that this section that is now going to be passed is notified very adequately and publicised to the Garda Síochána.
I will ask my officials to take note of that.
Clonmacnoise was mentioned. It was a member of the staff of the Bord of Works, a young man from Clonmacnoise, and a local garda who spotted the German in question taking the objects. Deputy Brady previously mentioned community watch, and that was community watch in action. The local people there have a responsibility.
That is our problem.
Right across the country we have to watch to ensure the safeguarding of our national heritage.
I am sorry, Deputy Enright, I must interrupt you. As it is now 1.30 p.m. I am required, in accordance with the resolution of the House of 23 June, to put the following question: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Finance and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee and is reported to the House, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.