Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Feb 1995

Vol. 448 No. 4

Heritage Council Bill, 1994 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Amendment No. 1. I am asking that we debate amendments Nos. 1, 14 and 18 together.

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order——

Deputy de Valera, I very much resent that you should interrupt the Chair in the process of addressing the House. This is totally disorderly.

May I just make a point of order?

I repeat, Deputy de Valera, it is very wrong and totally disorderly to interrupt the Chair when he is standing and addressing the House. Will the Deputy please allow the chair to proceed?

I just wished to be helpful, that is all.

I am now calling section 1, amendment No. 1 and suggest that we take amendment Nos. 14 and 18 together. Is that satisfactory?

May I make a point of order? I seek your guidance, Sir——

The record of this House in so far as my jurisdiction is concerned will show that I respect points of order but invariably they transpire to be points of disorder.

No. order.

As a new member of the Fianna Fáil Front Bench, it is a matter of grave concern to me that our parliamentary rights seem to have been infringed here in so far as we are being precluded from commenting on amendments or indeed on Second Stage. We seek your guidance, Sir, as protector of the rights of Members of this House. Can you advise us in relation to how we may proceed in having this procedural question dealt with because it is fundamental to Members' rights. For example, could the Committee on Procedure and Privileges give us some assistance in this respect?

My office is at the Deputy's disposal if he wishes to pursue those matters but I am now insisting that we proceed with Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr. Lawlor rose.

I am sorry, Deputy Lawlor, I am permitting no further points of order.

A Cheann Comhairle, I am entitled to make a point of order.

I have heard that so often, Deputy; it is a matter of obstructing the Chair. However, I will hear the Deputy. I am getting tired of obstruction.

The Minister caused the problem.

They are not my procedures; they are Standing Orders of this House.

This House has been disrupted today by the Minister's procedures——

They are not my procedures.

Yes, they are. The Minister made the most outrageous allegation that the outgoing Fianna Fáil Government would not agree with him on the contents of this Bill, yet he returned to this Chamber having made that quite outrageous allegation. It is out of order.

No, it is not.

Deputy Lawlor, will you allow the business of this House to proceed and the Minister to move amendment No. 1?

This is dictatorship.

A Cheann Comhairle, may I make a suggestion that we adjourn to allow the Whips to discuss this matter.

No, Deputy, you may not.

It would appear that the Minister has been imbued with grandeur in this Bill.

These matters can be discussed by whomsoever wishes to discuss them but I should say that the motion on which the House has just voted was tabled in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House and in consultation with your office, a Cheann Comhairle.

The amendments I wish to have discussed together are Nos. 1, 14 and 18.

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of information——

Deputy Treacy, this is disgraceful conduct.

——on the basis of the motion before the House which came in very late in the day, which was not tabled this morning, whose idea was it to table this motion? Was it that of the Minister, your office, Sir, or another office of the Oireachtas?

My office does not engage in any initiation of such matters.

My understanding is that the Whips' office has been told that we have no way of proceeding except in this way.

This is downright obstruction.

I will endeavour to raise the matter on the Order of Business tomorrow——

If you wish, Deputy, do so.

——but may I make a point of order in relation to what the Minister just said——

No, I have called the Minister.

He put down a motion which has proved undemocratic. If that is the way in which the Government will order business, without endeavouring to reach agreement between the Whips, so be it. This was put up to us last evening around 10 o'clock, without any notice or explanation about——

The Deputy has made his point. I am calling on the Minister to move his amendment No. 1.

This Bill should be retitled: "The Michael D. Higgins Monopoly Bill".

(Interruptions.)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 15, to delete Council".

Amendment No. 14 is proposed to give effect to the commitment in the policy agreement —A Government of Renewal— of December 1994, that the Heritage Council Bill will be amended on Committee Stage to provide that the functions of the Commissioners of Public Works, under legislation relating to the national heritage, will be performed by them, subject to the general directions in writing of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. The background to this amendment, as I have already stated to the House, is that in February 1993 the Government assigned to me, as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, responsibility for the formulation and development of future policy in relation to waterways, national parks, wildlife and national monuments and historic properties, with the Commissioners of Public Works continuing to exercise their day to day functions in these areas but in accordance with policy decisions taken by me setting out priority areas and proposed implementation targets.

The Government decision also provided that, to assist in exercising my policy functions, the Commissioners should report annually to me in relation to developments and the attainment of targets in these areas and furnish such information as I might require from time to time for that purpose.

It is very desirable that these principles are embodied in legislation. Therefore, the amendments I am introducing are in accordance with the policy agreement A Government of Renewal. The policy agreement also provides:

All the statutory powers of both policy and implementation of the Minister for Finance relating to heritage and cultural institutions (other than powers of a fiscal nature) will be transferred to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.

Already, the functions vested in the Minister for Finance under the statutes relating to wildlife, by a Government Order under the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1939 — viz. Heritage (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) Order, 1994 (Statutory Instrument No. 443 of 20 December, 1994) — have been transferred to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. An order providing for a similar transfer of non-wildlife heritage functions, which is a more complex matter, is being prepared.

In amendment No. 14, the reference to the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, whereby the functions of the Commissioners of Public Works shall, notwithstanding the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, be performed subject to the supervision of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and any directions given by the Minister, has been inserted as, under section 1 (ii) of that Act, the Office of Public Works is: "...a particular branch of administration assigned to the Department of Finance."

Amendments Nos. 1 and 18 are consequential and take account of the fact that the Bill will not be dealing solely with the Heritage Council but also, under the proposed new section 24, with the heritage functions of the Office of Public Works. Amendment No. 1 amends the short title of the Act from the Heritage Council Act to the Heritage Act. Amendment No. 18 amends the long title of the Bill to reflect the provisions of the new section 24 to be inserted by amendment No. 18.

Amendment Nos. 1 14 and 18 all refer to the new references in the Bill. To be consistent I must say that because of the manner in which this Stage of the Bill was introduced, because of the difficulties regarding procedure, all of which appears to have happened very quickly in relation to Committee Stage rather than Second Stage, I cannot support these amendments. That is regrettable. If the legislation was taken in another context there could have been agreement but it is being rushed through and, therefore, not being given the necessary consideration which such an important Bill warrants.

I am in an extremely difficult position. As I indicated briefly when I spoke on the motion before the Vote, I had no difficulty with the substance of what the Minister is proposing to do, but I have enormous difficulty with the manner in which he has proceeded on this issue. The proposals he is making here today alter fundamentally and quintessentially the nature and scope of the Bill as it was initially presented to this House on Second Stage. I fully accept the reasons for the alterations and I also understand the circumstances involved. There was a change of Government and one Programme for Government was replaced by another. As a result various changes to this legislation were proposed. Those changes would make such difference to the Bill that the original Bill ought to have been rescinded and a new one drafted. I am intensely upset and annoyed that the Bill was not dealt with in that way.

If this is to be the first of a series of Bills that were in midstream before the change of Government, that have been altered radically as a result of that change and are to be presented to the Dáil in this manner, I predict to this Minister and any other Minister who might contemplate a similar course of action that it will lead to a good deal of tension and hostility between Members of the Dáil and members of the Government. That is something I would not wish to happen particularly on a Bill such as this on which there was uniform agreement and total support from all parties for what the Minister proposed on Second Stage. It is most regrettable that that atmosphere of support and co-operation has now been ruptured. I respect the democratic vote that has been taken and I will abide by it, but I caution the Minister. I will write to the Taoiseach on behalf of my party and point out that if this is to be a feature of the new Government and the manner in which it plans to reintroduce legislation that was already in the pipeline, it is on a collision course with the backbench TDs and Opposition spokespersons. It augurs very badly for the Government.

There has been talk of openness and accountability. Who is the Government accountable to in the first instance, if not to the elected representatives of the general public? I deeply regret that the Minister has proceeded in the manner in which he has done. I regret it more deeply still because I believe the Bill is a better Bill as a result of the changes made, but I reject fundamentally the manner in which they were made and presented to the House.

I wish to address the amendments and be consistent with the views expressed by other Deputies. The amendment proposes to delete the word "Council". I do not believe anybody is critical of the thrust of the Bill. This is possible legislation but we have a problem in that we were made aware only late last night of the details of what was being proposed.

On Second Stage the Minister stated that he would table amendments for Committee Stage. It would have been more desirable if the breadth of what was going to be proposed had been indicated at Second Stage. Failure to have done so means that Members have been denied the opportunity of a Second Stage debate on the drastically changed proposals before us now. That is the point at issue. We are now dealing on Committee Stage with a major broadening of the Bill and that is what we object to rather than the improvements in it and a broadening of its role. I am sure the Bill will eventually pass through both Houses but to have notified Members at the last moment of the substantial changes in the Bill is a very bad way of ordering our business.

Nuair a labhair mé an uair dheireanach anuraidh are an mBille seo bhí mé thar a bheith fabhrach do Bhille na Comhairle Oidhreachta. Aon-taím leis an méid atá ráite ag mo chomh-Theachta de Valera agus na Teachtaí eile faoin athrú bunúsach atá tagtha ar an mBille. Tá daoine ag rá liom go bhfuil an t-uisce faoi thalamh seo ar siúl anseo inniu. Ní thuigim cad é atá laistiar de ach ceapaim go bhfuil rud éigin laistiar de. Faoi mar a dúirt an Teachta Quill, is mór an trua go bhfuil Bille mar seo os comhair an Tí, mar tá gach páirtí ina fhabhar agus tá gá leis ach tá an t-athrú bunúsach seo ag cur isteach go mór ar an mBille agus ag cur isteach ar an gcomhaontú agus obair an Tí. Ba mhaith liom a fháil amach ón Aire cad é go díreach atá taobh thiar den athrú atá beartaithe aige.

I am pleased to reply to Deputies. As one who has worked on heritage legislation, introduced legislation on national monuments, brought forward this legislation, intends introducing legislation on museums and libraries as well as amending the Wildlife Act, I, too, appreciate consultation and goodwill on these issues. I wish to make a point which I suggest Members should consider calmly. From February 1993 onwards we had a stated position which was throwing up practical day to day difficulties and it was agreed that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht of the day would have responsibility for future policy. However, where did policy and practice come in? Even with the best will in the world the commissioners, for example, had functions which derived from the authority of the Minister for Finance and others but which had been laid down in their own way. It was agreed that it was much better when moving from one Government to another to make the relationship explicit, I wish there had been more time to discuss the changes and to give notice of the motion. Immediately I found the motion was necessary, I consulted with the Ceann Comhairle's office, the role of which is one of advice, and was advised that the way I suggested proceeding by way of motion was in accordance with Standing Orders. I want people to advert to what has happened and I will answer Deputies' questions in a straightforward manner.

Tosóidh mé leis an méid atá ráite ag an Teachta Killeen agus cuireann sé as dom a chuid cainte faoi uisce faoi thalamh — ní raibh aon uisce faoi thalamh ag baint liomsa riamh agus ní raibh aon easpa misnigh ann maidir le labhairt amach go hoscailte. B'fhéidir nach mbeadh an rud céanna le rá ag gach comhalta den Teach seo agus tuigeann sé cad é atá i gceist agam.

Deputy Killeen need not be concerned that I will say one thing one day and something else the following day. The purpose of these amendments is to implement what is proposed in the Government's programme and this is included in that programme because it is necessary to make explicit the relationship between policy and administration. As a result, people will be able to point to where the responsibility lies by way of Dáil question or otherwise. This proposal will simply make a process explicit because, as I understand it, I am not being given powers other than those given to me in February 1993 by the Government. The only difference now is that the gap between policy and its implementation, which was left open to misconception at that time, is being filled. That gap was not intentional on the part of either party involved. The powers transferred to the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht have been laid down and the relationship between the Minister and the commissioners, the commissioners responsibility to the Minister and, in turn, his responsibility to the House and Government is being made explicit. There is no other uisce faoi thalamh or devious intent in this proposal. This change in the legislation will provide openness, orderly relationships between policy and administration and it will also strengthen the Bill.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 51.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • 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.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • 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.
Amendment declared carried.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following paragraph:

"(g) railways and related buildings,".

In this section the Minister sets out to define a list of items that come within the ambit of the Bill such as monuments, landscapes, wrecks and seascapes. The purpose of my amendment is to include in that list, railways and railway buildings. Railways and railway buildings are a very important aspect of our heritage and a crucially important part of our social and folk history. We have a whole body of ballads that belong to the brave men who with muscle power and will power built our railways at the end of the last century and several branch lines at the beginning of this century. I know of whole families who were involved in that type of activity and whose names and whose prowess live on as part of local and folk history. Their contribution must be acknowledged in the context of a heritage Bill. As well as that, they have left behind a fine physical heritage of engineering works in terms of railway tracks and railway buildings and an architectural heritage in terms of railway station houses, bridges and viaducts.

Some of the loveliest cut limestone buildings, bridges, viaducts or station buildings, up and down the country are adjacent to railways. In some railway stations — I travel a lot by train, especially in wintertime — the most beautiful Victorian wrought iron was used and it is important to protect and preserve those fixtures in the context of heritage policy.

A matter of concern to me was the closure in the 1960s of a number of branch railway lines, a policy with which I fundamentally disagreed. I was young and certainly not active in politics then, but I still disagree with it. Branch railways were not only closed down but the prospect of their ever being opened up again by another generation was put paid to because in many cases they were uprooted and the sleepers taken away and sold.

To add to that act of official vandalis farmers whose lands adjoin railway lines have begun, without permission, to extend their holdings onto the railway lines. Will the Minister ensure that practice is stopped? For those reasons and many others I ask the Minister to take on board my recommendation that some measure be introduced in this Bill, and any other appropriate legislation, to protect what is left of our railways to ensure they are handed on to the next generation in proper condition and to maintain that fine heritage.

I support Deputy Quill's amendment. Her argument about local history is very strong. All those involved in the building of railways and the families who worked on them for many generations should be remembered in the conservation of such lines. There are hopes that a former railway in my constituency, the west Clare railway, will be rebuilt under local schemes. I know the Minister has a particular interest in this railway, about which there are many songs and fables. It has been suggested that the rebuilding of part of this line will be a tremendous boost to tourism in the constituency, the county and the region. As a matter of heritage such railway lines should be preserved and I am very happy to support Deputy Quill's amendment in this regard.

I too support the amendment. As stated, some very fine buildings are connected to railways. Work on some of the old railway bridges — for example, on the DART line could have been carried out much more effectively if the bridges had been left in their original state. Will the Minister say whether lock-keepers' houses along canals are included in this legislation?

During his last contribution the Minister referred to bushes and hedges. I am not sure if that matter is dealt with under this section but the Minister's contribution was unintelligible.

Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba chóir go mbeadh an méid a dúirt mé leis an Teachta Killeen ríshoiléir. Nuair a bhí sé ag caint rinne an Teachta Killeen tagairt d'uisce faoi thalamh agus shéan mé an méid a bhí le rá aige. Dúirt mé freisin nach raibh sé de nós agam aon rud a rá go hindíreach agus nach raibh aon bhac orm rud ar bith a bhí ar m'intinn a nochtadh go neamhbhalbh agus bhí mé ag súil go mbeadh de dhánacht ann an stíl chéanna a chleachtadh.

I share Deputy Quill's concern and her views on encroachment. The specific inclusion of railways and related buildings within the definition of archaeology is unnecessary in that they are included in monuments as defined in section 2. They also come within the definition of architectural heritage, which is proposed in amendment No. 3 in my name. This is a better way to deal with the matter instead of making specific reference to railways and related buildings because, for example, the argument might be made that stone buildings or places nearby are related to the railway or, in terms of people who lived there, to work carried out on the railway. The architectural heritage definition in amendment No. 3 includes all these matters and I prefer to deal with it in that way. For that reason I ask the Deputy to accept that her concern is met in the Bill, specifically in amendment No. 3.

I accept the Minister's intention in this respect and I am sure there is a body of people who readily recognise that railways ought to be part of our architectural heritage, but there is also a wide body of people who speak a different language. A recent example of professional people speaking a different language when talking about the same item was at the Select Committee on Security and Legislation. While the Minister and some experts may accept that railways are included by definition, there is a large body of people who contend that railways should be included in the Bill in their own right.

Railways are huge installations and most ordinary people, including me, would not regard them as monuments. I consider myself to be a reasonably thoughtful person and I would never describe a railway as a monument. A number of railways and railway buildings are still in use and to relegate them to the status of monuments is to ignore those still in use which could be put to other use if there was a change of heart. Future generations may see the commercial, heritage and other values of railway stations. Given the magnitude of the railway infrastructure, the importance of railways and the precarious position of many railway lines, I appeal to the Minister to accept my amendment failing which I will reserve the right to re-enter it on Report Stage. I ask him to think very carefully before he decides to include railways in a body of language which might not be understood by the general public.

I may have unintentionally misled the Deputy. If railways qualify for inclusion in the definition of "archaeology" they will be monuments. That is not my case. Under amendment No. 3 "architectural heritage" will include all structures, buildings, traditional and designed, and groups of buildings including street-scapes and urban vistas, which are of historical, archaeological, artistic, engineering, scientific, social or technical interest, together with the setting, attendant grounds, fixtures, fittings and contents. I assure the Deputy there is no way even an unreasonable person could disqualify railways and railway buildings from that definition. Dealing with the issue in this way is more inclusive. I am confident — I may have misled the Deputy slightly in this regard — that the protection she correctly wants is included in that definition.

I did not enter into the debate earlier as I was not sure of the Minister's attitude to Deputy Quill's amendment. The insertion of the Deputy's proposed wording may pose a problem for the Minister but I think we are all at one on this point. I support the spirit of Deputy Quill's amendment. The culture and history of railways is unique. Many of the railways in North America, the English midlands and other parts of the world were built by Irish labourers. This point is peripheral to the debate but it is of historical interest.

As Deputy Quill correctly said, many beautiful small railway stations have been taken over, I presume legally, and destroyed. The Horse and Jockey station building on the main Cork-Dublin railway line which was derelict but usable up to 20 years ago is now gone. The same applies to Goold's Cross and the Kenmare-Cork line. There is an interesting advertisement for this line in the Parknasilla Hotel, which is really a railway hotel. By definition, railway hotels should be preserved not only for their historical and cultural value but also for their architectural and archaeological value. This advertisement, which must be 100 years old, advertises weekends in the Parknasilla Hotel for people living in London. The travelling time between London and Kenmare 100 years ago was not much longer than it is today — one caught an express train to Fishguard, took a streamer to, I presume, Rosslare, and then took the train to Kenmare. The train stopped at many small railway stations, including Kent station in Cork city which is a magnificent curved structure — someone said there was a slight bend in it so as to reflect the character of the Cork people. I do not know why it is this shape but I do not think that is true. That structure and the tunnel which connects the station to Kilbarry, a small railway station outside Cork, are a very valuable part of our heritage. I do not for one moment question the Minister's goodwill on this issue but I agree with Deputy Quill that it would be helpful to recognise the unique nature of railway structures in this Bill.

I very much appreciate Deputy Barry's support. I had intended to refer to the branch line from Kenmare to Parknasilla but decided that I would not become nostalgic today. I will withdraw my amendment, and accept that I have the total support of the Minister, but depending on the remainder of the Committee Stage debate I will reserve my right to re-enter it on Report Stage. I thank all the Deputies who supported my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 6 is consequential and amendments Nos. 9 and 17 are related. I suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 3, 6, 9 and 17 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following definition:

" `architectural heritage' includes all structures, buildings, traditional and designed, and groups of buildings including street-scapes and urban vistas, which are of historical, archaeological, artistic, engineering, scientific, social or technical interest, together with their setting, attendant grounds, fixtures, fittings and contents;".

Amendment No. 17 arises from a commitment I gave on Committee Stage in the Seanad, in response to strong representations by Senators, to amend paragraph 9 (2) of the Schedule during the debate in the Dáil so as to provide for the establishment of standing committees on architectural heritage and inland waterways. A definition of the term "architectural heritage" will be inserted in section 2 by amendment No. 3. I appreciate Deputy Quill's generosity in accepting my assurances in regard to the definition. Under amendment No. 3 "architectural heritage" will include all structures, buildings, traditional and designed, and groups of buildings including streetscapes and urban vistas, which are of historical, archaeological, artistic, engineering, scientific, social or technical interest, together with their setting, attendant grounds, fixtures, fittings and contents. If Deputy Quill thinks there is a way of making this more certain between now and Report Stage I will be generous in my response. Nevertheless, I believe I have dealt with the matter in a way which gives assurance.

The term "inland waterways" is defined in section 2. The proposed amendment to paragraph 9 (2) of the Schedule provides that in addition to the mandatory establishment of standing committees on wildlife and archae-ology, which will effectively replace the Wildlife Advisory Council and the national Historic Monuments Advisory Council, the council must also establish standing committees on architectural heritage and inland waterways, both of which are important elements of our rich heritage. I am committed to making inland waterways a part of our living heritage by encouraging leisure activities on them and by involving local communities. Members will be aware of the corridor studies to which I am committed and one of which I have published.

Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 9 are consequential on amendment No. 17. Amendment No. 3 proposes to insert a definition of "architectural heritage" in section 2 (1). This definition will effectively replace "works of architecture" as defined in that section which, under amendment No. 6, will be deleted. The term "architectural heritage" is considered more appropriate than "works of architecture" as this is the term used — this is another advantage — in the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe which this country signed in 1985 in Granada in Spain which — as the House will welcome — we are currently preparing to ratify.

The term "architectural heritage" is based on the definition contained in Article 1 of that convention which is broad and comprehensive. For example, it includes the setting, fixtures and fittings of buildings. The term "setting" is included as buildings do not exist in isolation and must be viewed in the context of their surroundings such as gardens, parks and the landscape generally. Fixtures and fittings include such items as fireplaces and furniture.

Amendment No. 9 substitutes "architectural heritage" for "works of architecture" in the definition of "national heritage" in section 6 (1) which sets out the functions of the council in relation to national heritage.

I support the amendments. This Bill is all inclusive in terms of what it seeks to preserve and promote but I must ask the Minister to accept that much of what he proposes will be aspirational unless it is followed quickly by a conservation Bill. There is no legislation available to require local authorities to preserve streetscapes and buildings. The powers available are minimal with the result that the local authorities do not have the power to require the owners of private property to preserve it.

I will not make a long speech on this matter as I fully accept it is not possible for the Minister to go any further in this Bill but much of what he proposes in these amendments will be aspirational until a proper conservation Bill is introduced to compel the owners of public or private property to protect and maintain buildings.

I agree with the Deputy that it is important to introduce a conservation Bill. In many cases the local authorities are the greatest offenders in that they have allowed buildings of historical importance to fall into a state of disrepair. In Dublin many buildings that should be preserved are in a dreadful state.

The Office of Public Works is also guilty in this respect. Some fine Georgian buildings situated nearby have been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. This is outrageous. When the matter was discussed at the planning Committee of Dublin Corporation we were shown photographs of the condition of the buildings — taken inside — which amounts to vandalism. This should not be allowed to happen. Many other buildings in public and private ownership are in a dreadful state.

I welcome this Bill which is long overdue for the reasons outlined but it must be followed quickly by a conservation Bill. If there is any delay many unscrupulous people will move quickly and either pull buildings down or allow them to fall down. Will the Minister ensure that such legislation is introduced quickly to compel local authorities and the owners of private property to carry out the necessary work and, if they are not in a position to do so, to pass it on to those who are. Very often local authorities retain buildings with the result that they fall into a state of disrepair. If a good proposal is made to a local authority to refurbish a building it should be forced to sell it.

I accept fully that these amendments have merit and are desirable. Notwithstanding the fact that some excellent work has been carried out under the urban renewal scheme, the villages of County Dublin need to be protected. Last week the Minister's colleague, Deputy Costello, gave a good example of crisis management in a local authority which was able to screen a site on which a building had been demolished but which did not have the wherewithal to protect the building, which was demolished. Many streetscapes and buildings of historical importance are worthy of protection.

The Minister has to try to bring the local authorities and local community groups together to prepare an action plan covering semi-derelict buildings of historical importance and buildings in reasonably good repair. In particular, the streetscape in both Lucan and Malahide should be protected. I urge the Minister to make the necessary resources available to ensure that the intent of the legislation is met.

I appreciate the agreement that there is merit in an inclusive definition of this kind which includes not just individual buildings but streetscapes. I take the point that my responsibility this week is to put a heritage regime in place and share the concern that we need to provide the necessary resources to make the best use of the legislation and the interaction between planning authorities and those charged with the responsibility for heritage and, if necessary, to introduce legislation to bridge the gap between the two if there is a vacuum. Rather than noting the shortcomings of other legislation it may well be necessary to consider a Bill to fill the vacuum.

Amendment agreed to.

We now come to amendment No. 4. I observe that amendment No. 5 is related and suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together if that is satisfactory. Agreed.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 49, after "books," to insert "implements,".

I do not know if my amendment has been overtaken by the Minister's amendment but since I have tabled it I will speak to it. The Minister has sought to define "heritage objects" in the Bill which states that the term means objects over 25 years old which are works of art or industry, including books, documents and other records of cultural importance.

Our main industry is agriculture. For that reason, and because of an exhibition in the Cork public museum last year celebrating the mining past of Cork city, I decided to ask the Minister to accept my amendment and include in that list all tools and implements. I refer in particular to farm implements, which are very much part of our heritage as agricultural people and part of the craftsmanship of an older generation in that many of the older implements were beautifully fashioned by hand.

I would remind the Minister of the fine exhibition in Cork Public Museum where two of Ireland's most unique archaeological treasures, a wooden pick and shovel almost 4,000 years old, formed the centrepiece of an exhibition entitled "Our Mining Past — the Metal Mining Heritage of Cork". The objects were found at Mount Gabriel in west Cork and formed the basis for a fine exhibition including a series of photographs and graphic panels, ore samples, stone tools, bronze weapons and tools of copper and bronze. It was one of the most interesting exhibitions which that museum, which is 50 years old this year, has ever held. It was attended not only by school children but by people from the city and county and by international visitors. It was nominated for a pres-tigious award which I hope it will win in due course. That exhibition prompted me to ask the Minister to make specific reference in the Bill to implements since they are such a fundamental part of our history and because they are proven to generate such widespread interest. They are attractive museum and heritage items and, as I said with regard to the railways, they are fundamental to our history and our heritage. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment.

We are happy to support Deputy Quill's amendment on this occasion.

I hope, we are making our way back to the equanimity which prevails normally in heritage matters. There is not a difference between the Deputy and me on the specific principle of function and aesthetic which is at the base of Deputy Quill's interest. It is important in considering matters of heritage that an object does not merely have to be visually pleasing. Last night I opened an exhibition of Japanese pottery. The pottery from different parts of Japan for tea ceremonies is both functional in the ceremonial sense and is also very beautiful. That would apply to many objects bought as implements. A difficulty I would ask Deputies to bear in mind is that by being too specific one runs the danger of excluding other items. I appreciate the work put into this amendment, but the inclusion of a specific reference to implements is unnecessary as implements are already included in the general reference to objects over 25 years old which are works of art or industry. The inclusion of a specific reference to books, documents and other records was necessary to remove any doubts that they were included in the definition. The same necessity does not arise in the case of implements. In addition, there is a danger that by specifying particular descriptions of heritage objects, the broad definition of heritage objects could be unduly restricted. I know what Deputy Quill wishes to achieve but I suggest that the definitions in the Bill address her concern. By making the language more narrow, we are in danger of entering into debate on an object that is not strictly an implement but is still of value. I would draw the Deputy's attention to the definition of archaeological objects which provides comprehensive protection. That is the way to proceed and while I appreciate the interest that led to this amendment being tabled, I cannot accept it.

Amendment No. 5, which is being taken with No. 4, seeks a specific reference to genealogical records in the definition of heritage objects in section 2 (1). On Committee Stage in the Seanad, Senator Taylor-Quinn and other Senators made the point that the definition of national heritage in section 2 (1) did not include the many valuable documents in institutions around the country in which there is a great deal of interest. Many letters and representations have been received by me from genealogical societies expressing the view that the genealogical heritage should come within the scope of the Bill and, therefore, I introduced an amendment to the definition of heritage objects in section 2 to include documents and records of cultural importance which will include genealogical records. The way I did that was to refer to documents and records of cultural importance so that I would not face a problem of narrow definition of what was genealogical or otherwise. I use that by way of illustration. I am not refuting the case made by Deputy Quill but I am seeking a more inclusive definition to ensure that in making specific references, I do not leave anything out.

I find the Minister's explanation somewhat intriguing. Perhaps I am a little deficient on the language of heritage, arts and culture——

——but there is an old saying in Irish, "Léann an púca a scríbhneoireacht féin". The Minister understands his definition fully but I also understand my definition. If, for example, we are to include books — and the Minister has decided to include books without deeming that to be too restrictive — the same argument can be applied to implements and tools because for a civilisation that has only very recently become literate historically many more weapons and tools were fashioned in Irish society than books written or published. I defend my right to ask the Minister to include a specific reference to implements and tools because I would argue they have equal right to primacy as have books in the context of heritage legislation.

As I read it, only implements or tools under 25 years old would suffer any disability under the protecting definitions I have given. The Deputy must remember we have referred to objects over 25 years old which are works of art or industry. I cannot see how an implement or a tool could be argued as having no connection with industry. My own memories go back as far as the McCormack mowing machine but I do not believe that 25 years is too short a period. I will reconsider the matter between now and Report Stage if the Deputies so wish, but if we define something so narrowly and it then becomes a matter of interpretation and something can be argued that is outside the boundary of the narrow definition, it is put at risk. If one puts down the fundamental definition and specifies the generic categories of objects, as I have done, one gets the most protection. The case against that is that there are people who argue in favour of lists.

There is equally a very great weakness in that anything that is not so listed is therefore explicitly removed from protection. That is my reason for trying to get a balance on the description of categories which are not vague but will cover the concerns of Deputies. That is what I have attempted to do. I am not, therefore, disposed to accept the amendment. I will consider it between now and Report Stage.

Perhaps we should have a summer school to argue the issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 49, after "other" to insert "records, including genealogical".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 9 to 13.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.

Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 12 form a composite proposal. Amendment No. 11 is consequential on amendment No. 8. The suggestion, therefore, is that amendments Nos. 7, 8, 11 and 12 be taken together.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, subsection (3), lines 42 and 43, to delete "but shall not have power to hold" and substitute "and to acquire, hold and dispose of".

Amendments Nos. 7 and 12 are being introduced to give effect to the commitment contained in the policy agreement for Government of December 1994 entitled A Government of Renewal to amend the Heritage Council Bill to enable the council to own land and buildings. Effectively, and put simply, there was a restriction on the form of property which the council could own. This removes that disability to some extent.

Amendment No. 7 provides that the council may acquire, hold and dispose of land, including buildings. Amendment No. 12 removes the prohibition on the acceptance by the council of gifts of land and buildings. The power to acquire, whether by way of purchase or gift, hold and dispose of land and buildings is a standard provision in legislation setting up similar statutory corporate bodies such as the Arts Council, Bord na Gaeilge and An Bord Glas. Without being contentious, what is involved here is whether the Heritage Council is an advisory body or a statutory body with the usual powers that the other bodies have. There is a strong and less strong version of what the council should be, and this is giving it the same property functions that a full statutory corporate body would have.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 provide that this power will be exercised by the council subject to any directions which I. in consultation with the Minister for Finance, may decide to give it. This power will enable the council to, for instance, acquire its own premises and to intervene in the acquisition of certain heritage properties where it is considered appropriate. I do not envisage the council becoming involved in the routine acquisition of heritage properties. In any event the council will, no doubt, be restricted by the limits of its financial allocation. This does give it the power, should it be possible for it, and also the power to receive. That is the purpose of these amendments.

These amendments make me feel most uneasy. As I understand it the section implies an executive function that is in direct conflict with the responsibilities of the Office of Public Works. As the Office of Public Works is the State's property agency, a statutorily based council should not be empowered to acquire, hold, dispose of land or other property. What the Minister is trying to do in this Bill is draw all the strands together so as to have all the necessary regulations under one Bill dealing with heritage. I can understand the logic of that but at the same time, in accepting these amendments, we would be duplicating existing arrangements with the Office of Public Works. That is why I could not support the Minister's amendments Nos. 7, 8, 11 and 12.

Let me be straight about this. The Office of Public Works has property owning and management functions. One can take the view that that being the case one therefore must keep the Heritage Council weak. I take the view that the Heritage Council must enjoy the same statutory certainty, the same corporate possibilities, the same capacity as other bodies such as the Arts Council, Bord na Gaeilge and others that I have not mentioned. There is a case, that can be easily disposed of, that it must be kept inherently weak because of the existence of the Office of Public Works. That is to overstate the concern and anxiety that might be felt. This is a good and necessary balance. Deputies cannot have it every way. They ask, on the one hand, that the council be able to operate effectively. Providing it with resources is another matter, but it must have the capacity to operate effectively. If, for example, somebody wanted to leave a significant building or estate to the people through the Heritage Council, we should not prohibit that by Statute on the basis that it may upset an extreme view of the Office of Public Work's powers and intentions. I am quite convinced that the council needs these powers and that is why I must press this group of amendments.

I indicated at the outset that although I disagreed with the manner in which this group of amendments were introduced, I had no difficulty with the substance of the amendments. On Second Stage I pointed to inherent weaknesses in the Bill, including the fact that the council did not have the functions it is being given by these amendments. This is a move in the right direction and gives the Heritage Council greater functions than it had under the Bill as initially drafted, and that is important if it is to achieve its aims and objectives as opposed to being like a good mother-in-law telling everybody how to run the house but having no further function or authority. I support each of these amendments. As a result of them we will have a much better Bill. They contain elements of arguments that I made on Second Stage.

I want to emphasise that it is not my intention to keep the Heritage Council weak. That was a rather emotive way of putting it. I come back to what I believe to be the kernel of the argument, that giving such powers to the Heritage Council would simply be duplicating existing arrangements with the Office of Public Works.

I do not for a second impute anything other than concern for efficiency to the spokesperson opposite, Deputy de Valera. However, I make this point because it is a very important one. We are faced with a choice. Having decided to have a heritage regime with heritage legislation and a Heritage Council which will be strong, I want to stress that all that has been given the Heritage Council are such powers as other statutory bodies have. One can come at it the other way and say that because the Office of Public Works exists, and it is a State property management body, that no one else should have the right to be given a gift of property, to acquire property or to manage property, etc. It is entirely proper that the Office of Public Works carry out its functions, but you could not interpret that in such a way that the Heritage Council should be at a disadvantage compared to another statutory body in regard to our heritage. I have been through this argument before and I am convinced, the Heritage Council can have these powers without it interfering with the Office of Public Works in any way. It certainly will not conflict with the role of that body.

Let us suppose that after having accepted this it transpired not to be so, the council is restricted by the way that I have given it this right and must comply with "such directions as may be given to it by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Finance". In order to exercise its functions with regard to property the council would have had to have a direction from me and I would have had to consult with the Minister for Finance. It would be only reasonable to expect the Minister for Finance of the day if there was a gross duplication of functions to take cognisance of the views of other relevant State agencies. I am happy that this will not interfere in any way but, equally, I am certain that the Heritage Council is the stronger and more certain of its territory. It will simply have the same rights as the other bodies I mentioned such as, the Arts Council. Bord na Gaeilge and others.

I hope I have made the case for these amendments.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Amendment No. 8 has already been discussed with amendment No. 7.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) In the exercise of its functions in relation to the acquisition, holding and disposal of land the Council shall comply with such directions as may be given to it by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Finance.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 4, to delete "works of architecture" and substitute "architectural heritage".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 7, subsection (3) (b), line 14, after "authorities" to insert ", including educational bodies,".

I hope I am not talking to myself again in moving this amendment. I must be part of the "write it down school" as the way to get things done and I am seeking to include a provision that deals with the functions of the council. In section 6 (3) I am seeking to insert in paragraph (b) after the word "authorities" the words "including educational bodies". I appeal to the Minister to accept my amendment. I have two reasons for specifically wanting the words "including educational bodies" inserted. When I speak about educational bodies I have in mind curriculum development units as part of the public education process because if we are to have new heritage legislation and if its aims and objectives are to be met we need to ensure that a generation understand and appreciate their heritage much better than is the case.

It is not unusual to see fine pieces of our heritage despoiled for commercial gain or defaced by young people who clearly do not understand their importance and who due to the lack in their education do not have any sense of identification with these objects of our heritage. For that reason they tend to want to vandalise them or despoil them in some way. That is a great pity but it is a product of the way we teach civic responsibility and history in the educational system. I taught history for years and if I had my time all over again I would have an entirely different approach to teaching that subject. I could describe every battle in the Thirty Years' War culminating in the Treaty of Wesphalia in 1648 and reproduce it for my exam but there were whole areas of local history about which I knew nothing. Perhaps the fault was mine and I did not have the inquiring mind that I ought to have had but whatever the reason I knew very little about local history. I also had very little knowledge of archaeology and not a great appreciation of it but in our home there was a great appreciation of the items we talk about here when we discuss heritage. If it were not for the great work done by local voluntary historical or archaeological groups a good deal of what is important to us today would have been lost entirely. Great credit is due to such groups and I pay tribute to them this afternoon.

I recognise that there has been a vast improvement in the history courses that are now taught in school. However, for a body as set out in the original terms of the Bill to be a policy making body it ought to seek to influence and inform the curriculum development units of education so that future courses will at least embody elements of heritage which could be acknowledged as examination subjects. We should try to instil in young Irish people a greater awareness, appreciation and identification with their heritage. When you travel around the country it is not unusual to meet young Germans who know a great deal more about the background and history to some of the ruins and monuments than Irish people of their generation would know. For example, if you visit Sceilig Mhicil or one of these great monuments any day during the summer, invariably you will find that you are the only Irish person on the rock on that given day. That tells its own tale. If the aims and objectives of the Bill are to be met we have to instil in the next generation and, indeed, in all our citizens a greater sense of respect for and responsibility for the preservation and protection of heritage items. For that reason I ask the Minister to accept my amendment.

Another important point is that with the growth of all these new type heritage centres around the country there is a danger that a number of people who work in those centres will not be fully appraised of the importance of the items that are entrusted in their care and will have a very superficial understanding of heritage items. For that reason they will be in a poor position to explain and interpret the items. I know this is an issue between the personnel of the National Museum and those who seek to appoint staff for the new heritage centres. Those who work in heritage centres ought to have a deep and clear understanding of the importance of the items entrusted to their care. I would argue that people should be educated about their heritage at an early stage and then develop their knowledge in a more structured and professional way. This would lead to more employment in heritage centres which should be staffed by people who have the same knowledge and understanding of our heritage as the present staff in the National Museum and other museums.

I would like to forge an active bond between the new body and educational authorities. It is important to mention educational authorities because when we mention public authorities people think of local government, county councils, regional bodies and so on but do not include educational bodies. I appeal to the Minister to take this amendment on board.

I could not agree more with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Quill. I too, was a history teacher before I was elected to Dáil Éireann and share many of the views she expressed on the history curriculum. There is a greater emphasis now on local history and young children can participate in projects. Perhaps the Minister would have further consultations with the Minister for Education on this area. Not only must we educate young people to have a love and respect for our heritage at an early stage but adults must be given an opportunity to expand their knowledge of what heritage means. In this age of materialism everything has a price. However, some things are beyond price and our heritage is one of them.

I pay tribute, as did Deputy Quill, to local historical and archaeological societies. There is a very active one in Ennis. They play a part in heightening awareness of the importance of our heritage. Our heritage should not be seen as elitist — something for the few who have time to enjoy it. It is something to which we all have an equal claim.

I am influenced by the arguments made. The argument I made previously was that the specific mention of items in the Bill could be interpreted as excluding others. I am satisfied that does not arise here. One could argue that public authorities includes educational bodies but I do not think it is a strong argument. The principle of having a link with education is important.

As worded, the amendment refers to educational bodies and would be limited to educational bodies which are public authorities. I undertake to bring in an amendment on Report Stage which will embrace the principle in a way which will not restrict them to being public bodies. There is State education, private education and voluntary education and I want to find a form of words which will be all embracing. I undertake to do that on Report Stage and implement the principle of amendment No. 10.

That is excellent. I thank the Minister. At least one of my amendments was successful. I look forward to seeing the formula of words he will use to take on board the spirit and substance of my amendment.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Yes, pending the form of words being brought in one Report Stage.

If the Deputy withdraws the amendment I will bring in an amendment on Report Stage which will include the principle enshrined in her amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.

I wish to inform the House that the reference to section 5 (4) in amendment No. 11 is to the subsection inserted by amendment No. 8 which was agreed earlier. This amendment was discussed with amendment No. 7.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, subsection (1), line 23, after "subsection (2)" to insert "and section 5 (4),".

Amendment put and declared carried.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, subsection (2), line 26, to delete paragraph (a).

Amendment put and declared carried.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 21.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 14, subsection (2), lines 4 and 5, to delete "as soon as may be" and substitute "not later than six months".

I argued on Second Stage that this body ought to report back not later than six months, ought to be accountable to this House in some way and that those of us who played our part in the formulation of this Bill have a right to know how it is working in practice. We can ascertain whether it is achieving its aims by reading an annual report rather than tabling sporadic questions to the Minister at Question Time, some of which may never be taken. If necessary we can initiate a debate on the report and formulate questions on its contents.

It is more important than ever since new powers are being given today that we specify that the Council shall report back within six months of the end of any financial year. Anybody that cannot report back within that time cannot be seen to be carrying out its duties efficiently and well. It is very reasonable to request that the Council report back within six months of the end of any given financial year.

When we had this discussion on Second Stage I recall the difficulty I had in satisfying the demands of Deputy Quill on the publication of accounts. Should the accounts not be ready, should one then delay the report thereon? What this is doing is isolating the principle of financial accountability.

This is a good amendment, which I accept. It is only reasonable that the Council should be obliged to submit their accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General not later than six months after the end of any given financial year.

I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting my amendment, on an issue about which I feel very strongly and on which I spoke at much greater length on Second Stage. We shall have a much better Bill and greater accountability resulting from the Minister's generosity in accepting my amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

Amendment No. 14 in the name of the Minister which has been discussed already with amendment No. 1.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 14, before the Schedule, to insert the following new section:

"PART III

Functions of Commissioners in Relation to National Heritage

24.—The functions of the Commissioners in relation to the national heritage under the enactments set out in the Table to this section shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, be performed subject to the supervision of the Minister and to such directions as the Minister may give in relation thereto and the Commissioners shall provide the Minister with such information as the Minister may require for those purposes.

Table

The Act of the British Parliament 2 & 3 Vict., c. 61 (`the Shannon Act')

Saint Stephen's Green (Dublin) Act, 1877

Phoenix Park Act, 1925

National Monuments Act, 1930

Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Act, 1932

Whale Fisheries Act, 1937

National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1954

Holycross Abbey (County Tipperary) Act, 1969

Wildlife Act, 1976

Canals Act, 1986

National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987

Shannon Navigation Act, 1990

National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1994.".

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 48.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John(Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • 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, Seán.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Walsh, Eamon.

Níl

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and Ferris; Níl, Deputies Dermot Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
SCHEDULE

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 14, paragraph 1 (1), line 25, before "more' to insert "fewer than 14 or".

This amendment to paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule provides that the council will consist of, in addition to a chairperson, a minimum number of 14 ordinary council members. This is a technical amendment which will remove a potential anomaly, in that paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule provides for a maximum of 16, but no specific minimum number, of ordinary council members in addition to a chairperson, whereas paragraph 2 (1) of the Schedule — which, similar to the Broadcasting (Amendment) Act, 1993, provides for an equal gender balance — assumes that the council will have at least a total membership of 14 as it provides for the appointment of at least seven men and seven women. This is a technical amendment to accommodate that.

I commend the Minister for maintaining a gender balance.

I support the provision for an equal gender balance. What will happen if a member becomes ill and can no longer take part in the workings of council? Will that person be replaced by a person of the same gender to maintain the balance?

That is covered in the next amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 15, paragraph 6 (5), line 28, after "members" to insert "(including one or more vacancies that result in paragraph 2 (1) not being complied with)".

This amendment amends paragraph 6 (5) of the Schedule to provide that the council may continue to act, notwithstanding vacancies in its membership which include vacancies resulting in the gender balance requirements of paragraph 2 (1) of the Schedule not being complied with — that is, vacancies resulting in fewer than seven men and seven women being members of the council. This is to ensure that vacancies in council membership resulting in a breach of those gender balance requirements will not prevent the council from acting, pending the filling of such vacancies.

The amendment is similar to the provision in section 10 (5) of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, which was inserted in section 71 (1) (b) of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1993, where I also legislated for gender equality.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 15, paragraph 9 (2), between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:

"(c) architectural heritage, and

(d) inland waterways,".

Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 3, line 9, after "FUNCTIONS" to insert ", TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXERCISE BY THE MINISTER FOR ARTS, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT OF FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE NATIONAL HERITAGE".

Amendment put and declared carried.

Pursuant to Standing Order 100 (3), I have to report specially to the Dáil that the Committee has amended the Title to read as follows:

AN ACT TO PROMOTE PUBLIC INTEREST IN AND KNOWLEDGE, APPRECIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE NATIONAL HERITAGE, TO ESTABLISH A BODY TO BE KNOWN AS AN CHOMHAIRLE OIDHREACHTA, TO DEFINE ITS FUNCTIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXERCISE BY THE MINISTER FOR ARTS, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT OF FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE NATIONAL HERITAGE AND TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THE MATTERS AFORESAID.".

Title, as amended, agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Next Tuesday, subject to agreement with the Whips.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 7 February 1995.
Sitting suspended at 6.50 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
Top
Share