I observe that amendment No. 3 is related to amendment No. 1 and I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 3 together. Is that satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. I understand that amendment was moved by Deputy Quill and the Minister may intervene now if he wishes.
Heritage Bill, 1994 [ Seanad ] : Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In page 5, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
"(g) railways and related buildings,".
—(Deputy Quill.)
Deputy Quill and others made a case for this amendment on Committee Stage and amendment No. 3 in my name addresses the issue. My amendment states: "without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes railways and related buildings and structures and any place comprising the remains or traces of any such railway, building or structure." It is a deliberate attempt to handle the question of buildings other than just technical buildings. I believe that in amendment No. 3 I address both the spirit and letter of what was sought. On Committee Stage Deputy Quill suggested that the definition of archaeology should be amended to include a specific reference to railways and related buildings and that was supported by Deputies de Valera, Ryan and Barry. I pointed out I was in no doubt that railways and related buildings would be covered by the term "monuments" in the definition of archaeology, but that they would more appropriately come within the definition of architectural heritage. I am prepared to make a specific reference to railways and related buildings and structures in order to remove any doubt that they are included in the definition of architectural heritage. The dilemma in the drafting of legislation is that by naming something other things are excluded, but in this case by including in the formulation "without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing," I believe I have been able to meet the Deputies' concerns.
I thank the Minister for trying to incorporate the views expressed in the amendments. Will he accept that to include wording such as "industrial complexes"— I accept the Minister does not want to give a long list as that would exclude certain issues — when referring to railways would also take in warehouses, mills, canal site complexes and any 19th century industrial sites. It is worth while mentioning these specifically in the Bill unless the Minister believes these structures would be included under "engineering". Even if it does it leaves the position vague.
I have a difficulty in relation to this. My information from your office was that amendment No. 2 had been disallowed as had amendment No. 9.
I thought we were dealing with amendment No. 1.
In fact, it is incorporated.
I cannot speak on a matter that has been disallowed but I can say——
The position is clear from my office and I accept responsibility in the matter. Amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy de Valera has been ruled out of order as the matter does not arise from committee proceedings.
To be of assistance, and in the spirit in which this Bill is being discussed, I have no doubt that the definitions of "engineering", used in the Bill are sufficiently inclusive. Amendment No. 3 addresses the issues as proposed by Deputies on Committee Stage and I think I have explained its purpose.
I must advise the Deputy and the House that we are now on Report Stage and Members may speak once only, except the mover of an amendment who has the right to reply. Debate is now exhausted in respect of amendment No. 1.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 2 has been ruled out of order.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, line 20, after "contents" to insert ", and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes railways and related buildings and structures and any place comprising the remains or traces of any such railway, building or structure".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, line 17, to delete "records" and substitute "heritage, which includes records of births, baptisms, marriages, deaths and burials, census returns, testamentary and property records, biographies, family histories, heraldic devices, local histories, gravestones and inscriptions thereon".
I am sure the Minister will have received a number of letters in regard to specific references in the Bill to the whole question of genealogy and how the reference on Committee Stage is regarded by a number of societies as not sufficient. That is the reason I propose a broadening of the definition of genealogy.I hope the Minister believes it to be an addition and an extra qualification in the reference to genealogy. I am sure he will appreciate the importance of this matter and that he is aware of the great work done by Naoise Ó Cléirigh — in my constituency in Clare — on these kinds of records. The question of heritage, when it comes to genealogy specifically, should be outlined to ensure that no element would be omitted from the Bill.
The intention of this amendment would appear to be to include in the definition of "heritage objects" a definition of genealogical records which is referred to in the former definition. However, the wording of the amendment, as drafted, is defective in that it refers to genealogical heritage. In any event I cannot accept this amendment because, as I indicated on Committee Stage, there is a danger that the effect of specifying individual items in a definition would simply have the effect of excluding other items which properly come within that definition. I am satisfied, and the Deputy will acknowledge, that I have already made an amendment to the definition of "heritage objects" to include a specific reference to genealogical records. I am confident it will ensure that all genealogical records are included.
I understand that the question of inclusion or exclusion has arisen on practically every amendment to date in this legislation. I understand the Minister is worried that with a long list there could be exclusion. I would be worried about the reverse argument that there could be an exclusion due to a narrow definition. I want to ensure that these definitions are not interpreted in any narrow sense; that is the great concern of those who are deeply interested and committed to the genealogical debate. That is why I had hoped the Minister would have expanded his reference in the Bill, which obviously refers to genealogy. He is correct in saying this amendment refers to the genealogical heritage. Will the Minister give a guarantee, without accepting this amendment, that it will not lead to a narrow definition to genealogy?
I have already said that I believe the specific reference to genealogical records, which I have made, will ensure that all genealogical records are included. It is another project to change the wording as the Deputy suggests. It will be interpreted comprehensively and inclusively.
Amendment put and declared lost.
We come to amendment No. 6 in the name of the Minister. I observe that amendments Nos. 6 and 7 form a composite proposal and that amendment No. 8 is an alternative to amendment No. 7. I suggest, therefore, that we debate amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together if that is agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 8, line 28, after "interest," to insert "education,".
The purpose of amendments Nos. 6 and 7 is to amend section 6 of the Bill, which sets out the functions of the council, to provide that the council will promote heritage education, and in carrying out its functions co-operate with educational bodies. I believe the study of heritage should be included in the schools curriculum. This is something with which all sides of the House are in agreement because of its intrinsic importance and as a contribution to the protection and preservation of our heritage.The Heritage Council can play a valuable role in promoting heritage education.Amendment No. 6 provides for the amendment of sections 6 (3) (a) to include in the functions of the council the promotion of education in relation to the national heritage.
Amendment No. 7 provides for the amendment of section 6 (3) (b) to include in the functions of the council co-operation with educational bodies in the promotion of the council's functions.The function of the council, under section 6, includes proposing policies and priorities for the identification, protection and preservation of the national heritage and promoting interest in and appreciation of the national heritage.
On Committee Stage Deputy Quill, supported by Deputy de Valera, proposed a similar amendment which is now proposed as amendment No. 8. On Committee Stage debate on that amendment I stated that the principle of the council having a link with education was important but that the wording of the amendment was defective in that it only referred to educational bodies which were public authorities. I undertook to bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report Stage, amendment No. 7, which refers to all educational bodies not just to educational bodies which are public authorities.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, line 30, after "authorities", to insert ", educational bodies".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order. When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?
Now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Deputies opposite for their suggestions which have improved the Bill. I also thank my officials for their work on this further instalment of a comprehensive package of heritage legislation which will benefit us all.
I did not realise there was a change in the timetable and I apologise for my absence. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this Bill and thank him for accepting three key amendments of mine. As a result we have better legislation. This Bill will play a major role in preserving and promoting all that is best in our heritage and in ensuring that it is passed onto the next generation.
Question put and agreed to.
The Bill which is considered to be initiated in the Dáil in accordance with Article 20.2.2º, of the Constitution will be sent to the Seanad.