Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994

Vol. 444 No. 2

National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1993 [ Seanad ]: Report Stage.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"3. —The Minister shall, in consultation with the Director of the National Museum, establish a register of approved local authority and voluntary museums in the country.".

I propose we take amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together since they are related.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I dealt with these amendments on Committee Stage. While I was sympathetic to the case put forward by the Deputy I cannot support them. My principal objection to amendment No. 2 is that I do not see the need for a local authority or a private person to be approved by the National Museum which already gives advice on security and environmental controls and hopes to see this service continued and expanded. The nub of the matter was that I did not want to impose a burden on individuals and local and regional museums, they should be assisted to achieve a standard and have the fullest co-operation. This is not a fundamental objection to the spirit of Deputy Creed's agreement on Committee Stage but respect for the autonomy of the people involved.

In regard to amendment No. 2, I also felt that local authority museums should become the repository of objects of real value and that those not of real value should be retained by the State. As I said on Committee Stage I hope to see local authority museums reach environmental and security standards that would allow the National Museum to give them objects of first rank. That is the thinking that led me to say I would prefer to rely on that strategy rather than accepting these amendments.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I accept the Minister's decision because I am sure it is for the good of the working of museums throughout the country. As the Minister mentioned security, it is important to make the point that as much as possible is given to the local museums. In my earlier life a child brought in a stone age axe head which I am sure the National Museum buried in the vaults of eternity whereas if it was in the Carlow museum it would not have the same security. I hope the Minister will expand local museums to ensure that as much as possible of the hidden material is given out.

It is my intention to upgrade the museums on the lines I outlined.

Acting Chairman

We are on Report Stage and we should adhere to the regulations governing it.

Do we have a special printed list of amendments which are being considered on Report Stage or is this the only documentation? If that is the case it is most unsatisfactory.

Acting Chairman

I believe there is a printed green sheet containing all the amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 3, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 form a composite proposal and it is suggested that they be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, lines 3 to 6, to delete "or at the site of, a monument referred to in section 2 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 1987 or in or at either of the areas referred to in section 2 (1) (a) (ii) or (iii) of the Act of 1987" and substitute the following:

"at the site of, or in the vicinity of, a monument referred to in section 2 (1) (a) (i) or (iv) (inserted by the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1994) of the Act of 1987, or found in, or in the vicinity of, the areas referred to in section 2 (1) (a) (ii) or (iii) of the Act of 1987".

Amendments Nos. 3, 18, 20 and 21 are in my name. They are grouped with amendments Nos. 19 and 22 in the name of Deputy Creed and are related. The purpose of the amendments in my name is to address an issue raised by Deputy Creed on Committee Stage which is reflected in his amendment No. 22 relating to the presumption of guilt provisions of section 2 (6) of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987. Deputies will recall that I had some sympathy with the spirit of Deputy Creed's amendment but I was concerned that to accept it would weaken the State's ability to protect the heritage of the people. Nevertheless, I undertook to give the matter further consideration between Committee Stage and today. My four amendments are designed to achieve an acceptable balance in this regard.

In relation to detection devices, amendment No. 3 extends the seizure provisions of section 7 of the Bill to sites recorded under section 12. Amendment No. 20 extends the prohibition on the possession of detectional devices contained in section 2 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987, to sites so recorded. With these added precautions I am sufficiently reassured to delete the presumption of guilt provisions of section 2 (6) of the 1987 Act. I hope Deputy Creed and other Deputies see this as a satisfactory compromise which meets the concerns expressed in amendment No. 22. As a consequence of amendments Nos. 3, 20 and 21 there is no longer a need for section 12 (5). Amendment No. 18 deletes that proposal.

A further consequence of acceptance of amendment No. 18 is that Deputy Creed's amendment No. 19 regarding the exemption of detection devices on agricultural machinery would fall. I sought specific advice on the interpretation of detection devices which I gave on Committee Stage and this has confirmed my interpretation that a detection device attached to a machine such as a combine harvester, the primary purpose of which is to protect the machine, would not come within the scope of the Bill.

I support the amendments for the reasons given by the Minister. As a result we now have a much better Bill and will have less difficulty in enforcing its provisions. As originally drafted, a number of difficulties would have been encountered in this regard. This would have made for bad legislation. It is our responsibility to put good legislation in place; this is legislation which can and will be enforced and yield the results intended. As originally drafted, I was concerned that this would not be the case on these specific issues and for that reason I am glad the Minister has tabled his own amendments. As a result we have a better Bill.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I also welcome these amendments. Deputy Creed was obviously trying to ensure that innocent people would not be linked with criminal activity. I hope that these amendments will rectify the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

We now come to Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 7 is related. It is proposed therefore that amendments Nos. 4 and 7 may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

"(c) the Garda Síochána shall return the seized detection device or salvage equipment if there is no prosecution against the alleged offender as soon as such a decision is made.".

As I indicated on Committee Stage, it is a matter of general law that anything seized by the Garda should be returned to its rightful owner in the event that it is decided a prosecution is not to proceed. I also indicated that I had some sympathy with Deputy Creed's point, that an express provision of this nature might strengthen the Bill, although it is clear from the provisions of section 7 that it is the courts which will decide if equipment seized is to be forfeited permanently.

Amendment No. 7 is designed expressly to clarify that items seized under a section of this Bill are to be treated in the same way as any other item seized by or which comes into the possession of the Garda in the course of their duties and must be returned if a prosecution is not to take place. I hope Deputy Creed will accept that my amendment provides sufficient reassurance.

The Police Property Act, 1897 provides, inter alia, that a person may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for the return of property which has come into the possession of the police. Section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951 provides that an order under the Police Property Act, 1987 can be sought by the Garda in respect of the disposal of equipment which has come into their possession, although no person has been charged with an offence in connection with it. I was anxious to say on Committee Stage that this matter was covered by general law but I wish to respond in the same generous spirit in which Opposition Members have sought to contribute to the debate on the legislation and I am offering this amendment in clarification. Amendment No. 7 deals with the substance of amendment No. 4.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am glad this matter has been resolved. I presume that if a person found in possession of a bicycle is found not guilty they will be allowed to retain it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

"(2) The powers of the Garda Síochána under this section:

(a) shall be related to the commission or suspected commission of an offence under section 3 of the Act of 1987,

(b) shall not be exercisable if the person has a valid licence issued by the Commissioners under subsection (5) of section 3 of the Act of 1987,

(c) shall be limited to the time necessary to bring a prosecution under the Act of 1987,

(d) shall be subject to an obligation to return the equipment if no prosecution is brought within a specified period of the seizure,

(e) shall not be exercisable on the ordinary equipment of the sports diver who is merely interested in seeing what is under water and be limited to the more specialised equipment used by a person attempting to detect, survey or recover underwater objects whether from wrecks or otherwise.".

The reason I have tabled this amendment is that I believe the powers given to the Garda in this respect are excessive. I acknowledge that looting of items of great archaeological importance has taken place off our coast during the past few years. While we have come to terms with the problem of looting of national treasures on land we have never confronted fully the problem of illicit maritime activity. As a result some fine treasures have been looted from ships off the Kerry coast which formed part of the Armada. These fine items which ought to be the property of this and subsequent generations were stolen — it was theft on a grand scale — and sold in property houses in London and elsewhere.

I appreciate the efforts being made by the Minister in this Bill to come to terms with this problem and to bring this black market to an end. This theft takes place under the mantle of respectability. It is considered to be an arty crafty activity and somehow or other is not treated by the public with the distain and contempt it deserves.

Not only should we confront this problem in law but we should also try to organise public opinion so that it is seen for what it is — theft of the lowest order. Property houses which deal in stolen material should be the object of public odium. We should do to them what Parnell asked the tenant farmers of Ireland to do to landlords who engaged in widescale evictions at the end of the 19th century and treat them with contempt. I am satisfied the Minister has confronted the problem.

The Bill as drafted is draconian as it applies to sports divers and members of diving clubs who engage in this activity for recreational purposes. It is for that reason that I have tabled this amendment. Members of diving clubs have been of great assistance to the National Museum in trying to recover treasure and have an important role to play in ensuring that the provisions of this Bill are fully implemented in the years ahead. As Deputy Browne said, we should not seek to visit guilt where there is none or make criminals out of people who are engaging in this legitimate activity for recreational purposes. I ask the Minister to respond positively.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I support the concept that the guilty should be dealt with severely. There is a huge difference between someone who appreciates the value of a tombstone or cross and is prepared to export it to make money or uses their skill as a diver to remove hidden treasure and, on the other hand, someone who may unintentionally destory valuable artefacts. Often in land reclamation people can do damage. When people are doing things for amusement, not for gain or for the sake of ripping off the nation's wealth, a distinction must be made. It might be difficult to get the balance right because when people are caught they can always make an excuse. However, in the case of exporting some of our antiques which can never be replaced, no mercy should be shown to the people flouting our standards.

The Minister is attemping to grapple with a situation that is not easy to deal with effectively. In the last few years we have seen a series of newspaper reports about the exportation to America, England and other countries of important archaeological artefacts of sentimental and national interest. There has been a series of robberies and desecration of our churches and gravestones in various parts of the country which are impossible to police effectively. Because of their location and geography professional rustlers find it easy to "case the joint" at any time of the day and come back at night or at some quite time. The more famous a place becomes the greater the incentive to remove something from it. Good examples are the Pyramids of Egypt and the Berlin Wall where people want to take away pieces for sentimental or other reasons. Professional collectors of antiquities are prepared to pay vast amounts of money for headstones, church stones and window stones. I know the Minister is trying to deal with this problem effectively.

I also support the calls by Deputies Browne and Quill in regard to underwater divers and those training in the pursuit of this important leisure activity who have no intention of removing something of interest that belongs to the nation. I hope, when the first offenders are brought to justice, that the full rigour of the law will be brought to bear and that this legislation will not be seen merely as a piece of paper lying on the Statute Book collecting dust while those engaged in their unlawful pursuits laugh wherever they congregate. This section of the Bill has a specific purpose. It is a legal deterrent and should be seen to be enforced. I fully support the Minister's actions in this regard.

I am very grateful to Deputy Kenny. What I have to do as Minister — and I believe this legislation will go very far in that regard — is to protect our heritage now and in future.

At the same time, I believe I have struck a balance between protection of something very valuable on the one hand and liberty on the other. Deputies will note I have already gone to considerable lengths to meet the legitimate concerns of divers. The text of the Bill when originally drafted was never intended to presume guilt on the part of divers. However, in so far as any reference to the diving community might be construed in any needlessly negative way, I sought to meet the representations made to me by diving clubs, Deputies and spokespersons to whom I was grateful, and I included a number of amendments that avoided any specific targeting of divers and limited enforcement action to those caught in the act of committing an offence.

I again stress that the powers of the Garda are already related only to the commission of an offence and would not apply where a licence has been issued under section 3 of the 1987 Act. There are already time limits set out in general law for the taking of charges and I do not think it desirable to have them reiterated in a specific context.

Amendment No. 7 already deals with the issue of the return of equipment if a prosecution is not pursued. Any further concession, particularly in relation to the activities of sports divers would, in the first instance, be discriminatory and do the very thing which we were asked by the diving clubs not to do — mention them specifically. Much more important it would make the provision unenforceable and undermine its spirit. My overriding concern must be the requirement for effective protection of such sites. The legislative provisions struck the appropriate balance between the right to liberty, which has been invoked as the rights of divers, and the rights of all our people to the effective protection of our heritage. Accordingly, I have gone as far as I can in retaining adequate protection. I am opposed to the inclusion of this amendment.

A good deal of the spirit of what I have in mind has been taken on board in the context of other amendments not unrelated to my amendment. I will, therefore, withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, line 24, to delete "diving" and substitute "other".

This is a consequential amendment necessary to line up the wording of subsection (3) of section 7 with the provisions of subsection (1) as amended by the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

"(6) The Police (Property) Act, 1897, and, where appropriate, section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, shall apply to any detection device or equipment to which this section applies."

Amendment agreed to.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I move amendment No. 8:

In page 8, line 7, after "may" to insert "after service of adequate notice in writing on the owners or occupiers".

It is a reasonable request that notification be given. I suppose the State must have divine rights if it wants to move in, but would it not be normal procedure to tell people as a matter of courtesy that it intended to do so and then take its own line on the matter if refused entry?

This is a matter on which I spoke on Committee Stage. I am inclined to come down in favour of Deputy Creed's amendment. If a gentleman from, say, the National Museum arrived in my back garden in the middle of an afternoon without giving prior notice as to what his business was I would automatically regard him as a trespasser and treat him accordingly. It would not be in the interests of this Bill if that happened on a larger scale. If a similar gentleman arrived in a field of corn on an early September afternoon when a farmer was planning to harvest, I think I know what the farmer would do — John B. Keane would also know what the farmer would do — in those circumstances. To facilitate the smooth operation of this Bill there should be a requirement in law to give minimum notice to the owner of a property that is about to be entered by somebody authorised to do so in the context of this Bill. In the interests of making this Bill work well that should be put in place in law. If it is not, we will have legislation that is very good on paper but which will not work as efficiently as it should. I would be fearful for the operation of the law if what I now say is not taken on board and formalised in the context of the Bill.

A balance must be struck in this area. I assume the intention of Deputy Creed's amendment is to draw a distinction between trespasing on property and the right and necessity of officers of the State to protect an archaeological site or an entity of it which may be in imminent danger of destruction or decay. Because of our history and geography, many of our archaeological sites and items of interest are located in remote areas or in areas in which there is not a high density of population. Given the population structure in many rural areas, a stranger may cause a legitimate and genuine fear among owners or occupiers of property. Having listened to the Minister's fine contribution in Achill recently, I know he is aware that a higher percentage of people over 65 years are living alone along the west coast and the appearance of a stranger close to their households or property could cause them genuine fear. Unless the owners or occupiers of a property are unaware of the value of an archaeological site or entity on their property, there should be no difficulty with the State informing them in writing that officials will be calling at a certain time to investigate, say, the ring fort or castle on their site. The position might be different if a report were submitted stating that tombstones or church arch stones had been removed and an officer of the Office of Public Works or the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht had to investigate the site with a view to protecting it. However, a balance must be struck between frightening legitimate landowners or occupiers and protecting our heritage and culture.

I support Deputy Creed's amendment. I assume it was his intention in tabling it to draw a distinction between trespassing on property and the legitimate concern of officers of the State in protecting and enhancing our heritage.

The Deputy's amendment deals with the issue of balance and I am sure it was motivated by concern for the sensitivity of landowners and cultural resonances that flow from the ownership of land, which I must take into account. Benign images such as that presented by Deputy Quill in regard to her garden — which I am sure is a pleasure not only to her but to many people in Cork — is generally used to justify amendments such as this.

We will have an opportunity to visit her shortly.

The Minister exaggerates delightfully, as is his wont.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): But accurately.

I must also deal with people who discover an object which is part of our national heritage. If we insert a requirement of notice in this regard in the Bill we could render the protection requirement of the section nugatory. Nevertheless, it is fair to assume that the Director of the National Museum or a designated person would operate with similar propriety to that which we would expect from anybody else. The Director or designated person will produce identification. Officials of the Office of Public Works have had authority since the 1930s to enter land and inspect monuments. The Bill will not introduce entirely new provisions in this regard. The Director or a designated person will be named and if there is improper use of powers the matter can be raised in the Dáil. If we insert a requirement relating to a notice in writing we would facilitate the concerns of the Deputies, but we would also make it more difficult to execute protection of archaeological sites. In accepting this amendment we would allow more time for those who might not be willing to accept responsibility in respect of an object of interest and its context.

On Committee Stage I stated that the physical context of a find is often much more important than the object. Therefore, it is necessary to move quickly, not only to recover or note an object, but to preserve the site from damage so that the significance of an object can be read. That is why we need this power in the legislation. To require a notice in writing would defeat the purpose of this section and, because of the delay, increase the possibility of irrevocable damage to a potentially important site through weather, vandalism or the natural deterioration of ancient objects exposed to the elements. I have no doubt these powers will be exercised with sensitivity and the co-operation of landowners and occupiers sought in all cases. Identification will be produced by the office holder who will be either the Director of the National Museum or a designated person. I expect such co-operation will be forthcoming in the majority of cases. If I am to protect our heritage we must retain in this section the power of an immediate investigation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 9 and 14 are related and may be discussed together.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I move amendment No. 9:

In page 8, line 8, after "premises" to insert "the owner of which shall be exempt from liability".

As our time for Committee Stage is short, there is no need to explain this reasonable amendment. Having regard to the forthcoming legislation on occupiers' liability, if people move in to work on archaeological finds I presume the landowner must be exempt from liability in the case of an accident.

I support this amendment. The intention of the amendment is not to cause undue fear to the owner of the property on which there is an object of archaeological interest. I recall when I was Minister of State at the Department of Labour receiving claims from three members of a family for damage arising from injuries they received from a pothole in the vicinity of their house. It is not beyond the bounds of the Irish mentality that if a person trips over wire or sprains an ankle on a stone on his or her way to view, say, a round tower, a claim will follow. The Taoiseach stated twice this week that the public liability Bill is receiving fast track treatment from the Government and I welcome that. The matter is being taken to a new plane every month with an increase in the number of tourists and those taking part in pursuits such as walking, orienteering and so on. The intention of this amendment is that the owner of a property on which a monument is located or through which people must go to view a monument should not suffer unduly as a result of injuries to people gaining access to the monument in question.

This matter was discussed at length on Committee Stage. If the matter of public liability is not addressed speedily this Bill will not be enforceable. If the possibility remains that in the event of an accident occurring the farmer will be liable to pay compensation charges, nothing will make farmers open up their land. I would ask the Minister, perhaps not in the context of this Bill, to use his influence within the Cabinet to ensure that the public liability issue is confronted quickly so that the matter is finalised. Otherwise the provisions of the Bill will not be operable on the ground.

I wish to be very straightforward with Deputies. These amendments were produced in the absence of occupiers' liability legislation. While my officials were working in the Department on the text of this Bill and responding to amendments, the final report was received from the Law Reform Commission. This enabled significant progress to be made on the occupier's liability legislation which is now at an advanced stage. There is a need for such legislation, but this Bill is not the measure with which to deal with it. I am in consultation with my colleague, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, on this matter and I am happy that this legislation will meet the concerns that motivated these amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I move amendment No. 10:

In page 8, after line 48, to insert the following:

"(6) The owner of the land and the occupier of the land on or under which an archaeological object was found, shall have the right to appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction any decision taken in accordance with subsection (1) of this section.".

The Criminal Justice (No. 3) Bill enshrines the right of appeal, even against confiscation of goods obtained illegally. Even though the person making the original judgment may be very fair, the person offered compensation may not be happy with it. Is it not reasonable that there be an independent body to which that person may appeal the decision?

This is a matter in which I am interested as it provokes me to one final clarification of what is in the legislation. This is one of the most significant Bills protecting the heritage of Ireland. Sums are paid to individuals or groups as a reward for good and responsible citizenship rather than by way of compensation. That is a crucial point. We are not dealing with levels of compensation because the heritage of Ireland belongs to all the people. We are speaking here about appropriate rewards to individuals who behave responsibly. If, however, an owner or occupier of land, as referred to in the amendment, is dissatisfied with an administrative procedure, they have the right to utilise the law — for example, by appeal to the High Court against any diminution or unfair treatment of their rights.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Patriotism should motivate all of us to do what is right but if a person finds a valuable gold object on their land they may go to New York, on the pretence that they are going to the World Cup, and sell it to a rich museum there and nobody will even hear about it. We should insist that a person has a right to a reward for handing over such an item and there should be an independent body to decide whether the reward is sufficient. Good citizenship must be fostered and encouraged and we should not ignore people's rights in this regard.

Acting Chairman

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

I will reply to the Deputy's point. The level of reward——

Acting Chairman

We are on Report Stage and the Minister is not allowed reply again.

I simply wish to say that the mechanism in operation takes into account the quality of the person's morals in being responsible for valuable objects.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 9, to delete lines 7 to 15.

The first part of section 11 refers to the right of the Minister to acquire, by agreement or compulsorily in accordance with the Schedule, ground or land around a national monument but it is impractical to expect that the Minister would acquire the national monument as a distinct entity without providing a portion of ground around it for the purpose of viewing the monument or to provide a leisure facility for the use of people who would visit the national monument. Deputy Creed's intention in putting down the amendment is that a huge tract of ground would not be acquired compulsorily by the Department but that the ground to be acquired would be leased by the Department, with proper compensation given to the owner in respect of it. In the case of a number of properties maintained by the Office of Public Works ground in the vicinity of the properties is in the hands of the Department but is retained for specific use such as grazing by the landowner involved. The intention behind the amendment is to ensure that such land is still available for these purposes. Where a monument is taken over by the Department on behalf of the people there should be adequate access to it and sufficient ground from which people may view the monument.

I cannot accept the amendment because it seeks to delete paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of section 11. We discussed this matter on Committee Stage and I am at a loss to understand Deputy Creed's persistence with it. I am trying to establish a balance between the rights of private property owners and the rights of the people of Ireland to their heritage. The powers in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) are necessary for the provision of appropriate facilities to ensure clear possession of the lands involved and access to monuments.

The powers in section 11 relate to acquisition by agreement as well as compulsory acquisition. These powers are constrained by the requirement that the commissioners must obtain the consent of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the Minister for Finance. Where an owner objects to an acquisition the consent of both Ministers must be obtained before the land can be compulsorily acquired and both Ministers will be directly accountable to the House for their actions. These powers are further constrained by the provisions of amendment No. 12 in my name. I believe the concerns are met in this case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 12 in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 13 is an alternative and it is proposed that amendments Nos. 12 and 13 be taken together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, line 8, after "facilities" to insert "deemed appropriate by the Minister".

I welcome this amendment. My reason for putting down amendment No. 13 is very simple in that when this Bill becomes law, as a nation we will have put down a very strong——

Acting Chairman

Before the Deputy continues I would point out that in amendment No. 13 "line 9" should read "line 8". The Minister may speak on amendment No. 12 before the Deputy refers to her amendment.

We had a lengthy discussion on this matter on Committee Stage during which Deputies expressed concern at the nature of the facilities which might be provided under this section. Deputy Quill, in particular, was worried that ice-cream parlours and dance halls might be provided by the Commissioners of Public Works in the vicinity of national monuments. I appreciated the Deputy's concerns and agreed to examine the provision again to see if it could be tightened so as to allay the concerns expressed on Committee Stage.

Amendment No. 12 is designed to address this point in that in the vicinity of a national monument land can only be acquired for the provision of facilities which are deemed appropriate by the Minister. It is worthwhile reflecting on the safeguards built into this provision. Land for the provision of facilities can only be acquired with my consent and the consent of the Minister for Finance. As I said, both the Minister for Finance and I are accountable to this House for our actions in the exercise of these powers. In addition, only facilities that are deemed appropriate by me can be provided and it is implicit that my consent to any acquisition will only be forthcoming when I am satisfied that the proposed facilities are appropriate. If a landowner objects to the acquisition of land by the Commissioners of Public Works, my consent, and that of the Minister for Finance, must be obtained for the compulsory purchase order and, in addition, any facilities which the commissioners propose to provide will require planning permission. There are adequate safeguards which should allay all reasonable fears held by Deputies.

Under the section, as amended by my amendment, it will be a matter for the commissioners to specify the facilities they propose when they seek my consent to the acquisition of the property and it will be my role as Minister to decide whether such facilities are appropriate. I do not believe that it will be necessary to bring all such decisions to the Oireachtas for individual ratification in view of the safeguards I mentioned. Of course, I continue to be accountable to this House.

I am grateful to the Minister for taking my concerns on board and tabling an amendment in response to the very real concerns I expressed on Committee Stage. Having done the right thing by preserving and protecting our national monuments, my fear is that in the years ahead buildings may be constructed in the vicinity of national monuments that would negate all the good we are seeking to achieve in this Bill. If I could be assured that the Minister will live as long as many of the monuments in question, I would not be pressing my amendment.

To be as old as Methuselah. He is a very good Minister but he will not last that long.

In support of his amendment the Minister said that nothing could be built without the consent of the Minister. On a number of occasions I wished he had said nothing could be built without "his" consent. Those who are concerned about these matters would wish that this Minister's consent would be required because even his detractors — I am not aware of any — acknowledge that the Minister cares very deeply about these matters and will ensure that the monuments will be preserved and passed on to future generations intact and in all their splendour.

Unfortunately, being a realist I do not anticipate the Minister will be in office for ever and, for that reason, I will press my amendment. My fear is that when we have passed on some "cute hoor" of a politician will give planning permission for a commercial enterprise in the environs of a national monument. It is not outside the bounds of possibility that this could happen — we can enumerate instances where this happened in the past. If that were to happen would it not be the ultimate irony that in 1994 we had passed a package of measures to protect our national heritage and later a Minister would give permission to erect a building, the use of which might be in total contradiction with the spirit of this Bill, for example, an ice-cream parlour, a souvenir factory, a ballroom of romance.

That is a national monument in itself.

It is not outside the bounds of possibility that a building, the scale, design or architecture of which would not be in sympathy with an adjoining national monument would be constructed. I will not cite examples but under the planning Acts buildings have been erected in the wrong location. I have learned to be very cautious about these matters and, for that reason, I ask the Minister to accept my amendment. What we are doing today is of fundamental importance and will stand to the credit of this House for generations. I want to ensure that in future Members will have the final say on the facilities to be located in the environs of national monuments when people like us will have long since passed on.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I support the thrust of Deputy Quill's amendment. Obviously, one cannot desecrate the area around a national monument. The effect of the Deputy's amendment is stronger than that of amendment No. 12 in the name of the Minister. Under the Minister's suggested wording it is left to the judgment of the then Minister, but Deputy Quill's amendment provides that the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas is required in addition to the Minister's approval. That is an extra protection. We are trying to ensure that the environs of national monuments are not desecrated.

One of the fastest growing tourist attactions is architectural heritage and discovering one's ancestors. They are very important. I sympathise with what Deputy Quill is trying to achieve, but it is the function of the planning authority as distinct from "a cute hoor" of a politician to grant planning permission for any facility. The Minister of the day may decide to acquire a monument in the national interest but it is a function of the local authority and its members to decide on the appropriate facilities in the vicinity of the national monument. The Minister can certainly object and make the case that it would be a desecration to have machines dispensing "99" ice-cream cones in these areas.

Or selling passports.

It is a question of balance, and it is the local authority members, duly elected by secret ballot by the local people, who are responsible in their area for buildings and their use in the vicinity of national monuments and other important sites. With the restrictions placed on section 4 motions for planning permission we rarely see unsightly buildings in our landscape.

We had a profileration of them.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share