Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Feb 1995

Vol. 448 No. 4

Heritage Council Bill, 1994 [Seanad]: Instruction to Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the Committee on the Heritage Council Bill, 1994, has power to make provision in the Bill that the functions of the Commissioners of Public Works in relation to the national heritage under certain enactments shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, be performed subject to the supervision of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and to such directions as the Minister may give in relation thereto and that the Commissioners shall provide the Minister with such information as the Minister may require for those purposes.
—(Deputy Barrett.)

The main purpose of the Bill, which was introduced in the Seanad and received a Second Reading in this House in November 1994, is to establish a statutory Heritage Council to advise the Minister on heritage policy. I am proposing to introduce amendments which will ensure that the implementing agency, the Commissioners of Public Works, carry out that policy. This is theoretically the position which has pertained for the past two years — about which I was often asked questions — that is, since February 1993 when the then Government assigned to me, as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, responsibility for the formulation and development of future policy on inland waterways, national parks and wildlife, and national monuments and historic properties, with the Commissioners of Public Works continuing to exercise their day to day functions in those areas but in accordance with policy decisions by me, setting out my priority areas and proposed implementation targets.

This position was unsatisfactory in that the Commissioners have certain statutory powers which cannot be transferred by way of Government order, and there were difficulties in practice in reconciling this position with the responsibilities for policy assigned to me as Minister. In order to remedy the situation, I am introducing amendments to the Heritage Council Bill, 1994, and these will be discussed following the passage of this motion.

I do not wish to be unhelpful or disruptive, but I must protest at this procedure. Last week we debated the Second Stage of the Heritage Council Bill only to find that it is not to be the Heritage Council Bill but the Heritage Bill. While I understand the technicalities this motion is intended to deal with, the Minister must recognise that he is proposing a very different Bill to that discussed on Second Stage and this is outside the scope of the Bill as read on Second Stage. This is not how parliamentary business should be conducted. We should have an opportunity to have another debate on this Bill on Second Stage. I would also like to see a copy of the Minister's statement. This side of the House cannot agree to this approach to business and I, therefore, cannot support this motion.

Inasmuch as I understand the implications of the motion, I have no difficulty with it. What the Minister is proposing is in accordance with what has been requested over the years by a number of Deputies who felt that there was lack of co-ordination between different Departments, all of whom were charged by public policy to do the same kind of work. We have all asked for better co-ordination between policy-making bodies and bodies that implement that policy. That is what is proposed in this motion, and for that reason I support it. The Heritage Bill will be a better Bill because of this.

However, I also agree with the point on procedure made by Deputy de Valera. This motion properly belongs to the Second Stage of a Bill and ought to have been taken in the context of the Second Stage which was taken in this House as late as last Thursday. This is not the correct way to do business and I very much regret that this motion was not taken on Second Stage. I agree with that element of Deputy de Valera's objection.

I too share the concerns expressed. Irrespective of the merits or demerits of the amendments the Minister might bring forward, the critical issue is one of procedure and of proper regard for the rights of Members to proper advance notice of the Minister's intentions. His statements should be circulated in advance to the Opposition spokespersons so they can properly assess what he has in mind in terms of changing both the Title and the content of the Bill. We have talked for a long time about respecting the dignity of the House and the rights of Members to have an informed view. We are talking about substantial amendments and changing the nature of the Bill. Some might say they amount to aggrandisement that would do the Medicis proud in terms of empire building within the Government and certain Departments.

The Deputy had notice of the amendment.

The point is that this is Second Stage material and should not have been introduced in this manner after the Second Stage debate had concluded. It represents sharp parliamentary practice and should be withdrawn. This House should be seen to behave with the utmost propriety. Amendments should not be introduced after everyone has contributed. Some Members might agree with what the Minister is doing, but it stands to reason that others may disagree and they should have the opportunity to articulate their views on Second Stage.

We are delighted at the Deputy's conversion.

What I cannot quite grasp is why this motion is being introduced on Committee Stage when last week we would have had an opportunity to put forward our views on a Bill that has been revamped and broadened to take in inland waterways and so on? We are being given no opportunity on a Bill that is of great importance throughout the country. The Minister should reconsider the method of ordering this motion by which he made a short statement in the House and expected the House to accept it and go straight to Committee Stage.

Sílim gurb é an rud ab fhearr a dhéanamh anois ná go dtarraingeofaí siar é seo agus go dtosnófaí arís ar an Dara Céim. Mar atá ráite ag Comhaltaí eile, is trua go bhfuil an Bille á athrú go bunúsach, Tuigim an fhadhb don Aire: cé gurb é an tAire céanna é tá séi Rialtas éagsúil. Aithním cad tá i gceist aige má tá sé ag iarraidh an Bille a leathnú, ach má tá reachtaíocht os comhair an Tí go bhfuil arthrú bunúsach le teacht air, is fearr déileáil leis amhail is dá mbeadh Rialtas nua ag teacht i gcomhacht.

In ionad Bille a bheith againn anois faoin gComhairle Oidhreachta, tá Bille oidhreachta le bheith againn i gcoitinne. Más rud é gur athrú bunúsach atá i gceist anseo — agus sílim go ndéarfadh an tAire é sin — is ceart dul siar agus an t-ábhar a scrúdú ón tús.

Would the Minister agree that this procedure is most unreasonable to the spokesperson on this side of the House? Would he agree also that, procedurally, it is out of order in that he did not, as an initial step, ensure the delivery of a copy of his statement to the spokesperson contemporaneously with his commencement of the reading of his statement?

I am not attempting anything underhand. What is before us is a motion that enables amendments which I gave notice of on Second Stage to be discussed on Committee Stage. I would remind Members opposite who have spoken of the following which was the last part of my speech on Second Stage:

I will also be introducing an amendment which will require the Commissioners of Public Works to carry out their functions under a number of statutes relating to the heritage under my supervision and direction and that they will be required to supply me with the relevant information for this purpose....

The situation has existed since February 1993, as Deputies will be aware, that policy formulation for heritage matters has been my responsibility. It is very desirable that this principle should be embodied in legislation and the amendments which I will introduce are in accordance with the policy agreement A Government of Renewal. In view of the enlarged scope of the Bill, I propose to alter its title to the “Heritage Bill, 1995”.

That was in my concluding speech on Second Stage and all Deputies must have had notice of that in my Second Stage speech——

That is not the issue.

——or notice of the amendments.

I will deal with the other issues in turn and the Deputies should not agitate themselves too much. I will deal with the political matters as well.

——and procedural?

Under the previous Bill the Heritage Council was pruned back because of opposition from those who wanted to stop it, for example those owning property. I proposed, when I could have a Heritage Council with proper functions and negotiated in the Programme for Government that I would not lose my opportunity of putting back that which they most improperly and conservatively opposed.

That is outside the scope of this discussion.

I think Deputy de Valera when she comes to speak on Committee Stage will be able to tell the House that she had discussions with me yesterday, today and with my officials again today on the precise matter of this technical motion to enable amendments to be put forward to the Heritage Council Bill. I am sorry to hear that Deputies opposite feel they have to oppose this motion. I accept that is their right but I can assure them that I am proceeding with it as I intend to proceed with making the heritage legislation in this country as strong and effective as it needs to be and it will not be opposed either directly of indirectly, having been passed by this House.

What I am trying to offer is what I was often asked to do and what the public wants. It wants to know the relationship between policy formulation and administration on the ground. Who is afraid of having that out in the open?

That is not the issue, the right to debate these issues in the House is.

Is it not right that you will be able to come into this House and put down questions and get answers? I am speaking for myself, not for anybody else.

I interrupt the Minister to hear a point of order from Deputy de Valera.

Perhaps in doing so I might be able to soothe the Minister's irritation. On a point of order, Sir, when the Minister is talking about submitting amendments on this issue on Committee Stage, that is, of course normal procedure, but it is not normal procedure to take the opportunity on Committee Stage to change the whole content of the Bill, that is the issue.

I was delighted to have a conversation with the Minister this morning and I will be delighted to talk to him or his officials at any time but that does not change the prospect of this position which is totally at variance with the proper rules and procedures of this House.

Has the Minister concluded?

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níil, 54.

  • Ahern, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Browne, John. (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Bruton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá Deputies Barrett and Ferris; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.

On a point of order, I am very disappointed indeed with what can only be seen as a slight on our Legislature, that the issue this afternoon has been treated in a very cavalier and casual manner. We all know the Minister can be very creative and imaginative but I hope he will be able to use those traits to ensure that this Bill reverts to Second Stage. I assure him that this side of the House would allow Opposition time to facilitate him.

Having been appointed spokesperson for my party on Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht I had had great hopes and expectations that there would be many areas in which the Minister and I would be able to work together. We are talking about issues that need not necessarily be party political but about heritage. I am very sorry there has been all this hubbub over procedure which would not have happened if the Minister had taken the original Bill in the ordinary way. My fear is that much may well be lost in terms of time discussing issues of heritage rather than those of parliamentary procedure.

Once again I offer the Minister an opportunity to take this Bill, on Second Stage, in Opposition time so that it can receive proper attention and allow us all to consider it in what should be a thoughtful, comprehensive way.

This motion has already been considered and decided by vote. I feel sure Members will have an opportunity of commenting on matters as the Bill progresses. We are now going into Committee Stage; of course, there are other Stages involved——

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle——

The matter of the motion re the Heritage Council Bill, 1994, has been decided by this House. The Deputy may have a further opportunity to comment as we go through the Bill but not now.

On a point of order——

Please, Deputy de Valera, you know you are out of order now. I am now proceeding to deal with the Heritage Council Bill, 1994, Committee Stage.

I only wished to be helpful to the Minister and to suggest that perhaps the matter could be taken up by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

I should like to make a point of order.

We have disposed of the contentious matter by way of the democratic process of this House.

I know it is a very unusual circumstance.

How is it democratic to bring in a Bill——

As a Member of this House, I take exception to the fact that a Bill has been brought in here without notice, one that was originally published and presented, and now being changed. I am denied my parliamentary rights——

The House has decided that matter. I am now proceeding to Committee Stage and section 1 of the Bill.

This matter should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges forthwith.

Top
Share