Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Dec 1954

Vol. 44 No. 5

National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1954—Committee Stage.

Before the Committee Stage commences, may I express to the Seanad my regret that it was not possible to circulate the amendments before today? There was an unavoidable cause.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

This section amends Section 8 of the Principal Act and the point of interest is where the function of the interested citizen comes in. On whose information can the advisory council or the Board of Works act? If, for instance an individual in a remote country area learns that a monument, which is a national monument, is in danger of decay, or otherwise comes within this section, that person is at a loss to know the steps which he or she should take to have the matter attended to. I fear that the wording of this section may not cover that, because it states:—

"Where it appears to the commissioners, on a report made by the advisory council."

If a request or recommendation is made by an interested citizen, will action be taken in that regard?

The Senator, I think, did not give due advertence to the words "or otherwise". The citizen is covered in those two little words. It may be, perhaps, an unusual way of so covering him. It is quite clear that the Commissioners of Public Works may act, first of all, on a report by the council; secondly, on a report by one of their own inspectors; or, thirdly, on the report of any interested party such as, perhaps, a local county council or a local authority or a private citizen in the area. The reason the phraseology "or otherwise" is used is to cover all categories other than the council and make it as wide as possible. The representations should be made by the people the Senator has in mind to the commissioners.

In this connection I have been asked by some persons interested in antiquaries to point out that in this Bill there seems to be no provision made for the preservation of the surroundings of a monument. It would appear that this would be the only section under which the surroundings might be dealt with or brought into any Act. The section says that the commissioners may, by Order, undertake the preservation of such a monument. Could the power given under that section be stretched so as to cover the preservation of the surroundings of a monument?

I would like to support Senator McGuire, if there is any hope the Minister would change his mind on the matter. On the Second Stage, I suggested that an amendment to that effect might be put forward. The Minister gave his reason for objecting to it. If there is any hope that the Minister would change his mind on that, I also would welcome it very much.

We did consider this matter fairly carefully but, while I can appreciate the anxiety of the two Senators, I am afraid that, in administrative practice, it would be a very difficult amendment, indeed, to put into effective operation. If we were able to see in the future a really effective way of administering the idea that the Senators have in mind, I, personally, would not object to operate it but, as I am at present advised, I see very great difficulty, indeed, in operating it in any sort of a satisfactory way. I am afraid that, in fact, far from easing the situation, it would probably have the effect of rendering it more difficult to get national monuments taken over and preserved. It was on the administrative basis and not on any basis of principle that I was not inclined to introduce such an amendment.

Could it not be interpreted under the powers in Section 3 that, if, in fact, it was necessary to preserve a monument some of the land surrounding it, perhaps only a small area, would be covered? In some countries they can do that up to 500 metres. Could they, in order to carry out the work, under Section 3, include some land surrounding the monument? People are interested to know what can be done in this matter.

I think it is not under that section but under Section 2 of the Principal Act of 1930 which includes a right to preserve the amenities which would be necessarily part of the amenities of a monument.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Here I speak, as the Minister would describe it, as an interested party. I would ask whether, under this section, there is any hope of preventing the distortion of the front of Leinster House which has now been started? May I draw the Minister's attention to it if he is not already aware of it? The intention, I understand from official sources, is to fill in the Doric loggia on the right-hand side of the House as we enter it from Kildare Street, which is an architectural enhancement to the design of the building. I think the matter is directly relevant, and I want to ask whether it will come under this particular section or not. Will the Minister have power under this section to prevent what is virtually an architectural outrage being perpetrated on our House?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid Leinster House is not a national monument.

I hope the Chair will excuse me, but, under Section 4 he will find that the matter may be relevant because that section says: ".... a monument which in their opinion is a national monument". I would ask the Minister whether there is hope that Leinster House will, in their opinion, be deemed a national monument and, if that is possible, whether steps will be taken to prevent these outrages on the design of Leinster House? Let me give an example. It may be deemed to be a national monument under this section. When Queen Victoria's statue was removed we had presented to us an outrageous feature, in what I can only call the An Tóstal style, in front of the House. It cost a great deal of money in fine Dublin granite. No one likes it and no one knows what it is for. The only explanation I have had is that it is a jetty to anchor the ship of State in a storm. It may be that the binnacles may help for that purpose. I am asking the Minister whether, under this section, he or anyone else will have power to prevent such a desecration of a good architectural design as is being perpetrated on Leinster House at the moment?

May I point out that Leinster House was at one time the residence of Lord Edward Fitzgerald. I think it should be considered as a national monument.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senators will understand that almost any building in the country may be included under the heading of a national monument and if we were to permit discussion on these lines, then it is to be feared that this Bill would never be finished. We have to be reasonable in our approach to these matters.

If any building is worthy of being considered a national monument and preserved under such a Bill as this, it is the headquarters of the Parliament to which we bring visitors frequently. The first thing they ask is: "What is this absurd object in front of the House?" They will now ask——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator is going too far now.

I raised this matter on the Second Reading and I was not ruled out of order. I considered we took it for granted that this House was a national monument.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It might have been quite in order to refer to this matter on the Second Reading but it is not in order to refer to it at this stage.

Is the Bank of Ireland a national monument?

I do not want in any way to transgress the ruling of the Chair. I did enough transgression in regard to the rulings of the Chair during the five years I was in this House. I would point out to Senator Stanford the terms of Section 4. I might say, as a matter of opinion, that I am in entire agreement with him as to the granite platform that is outside. I never understood what it was for. Quite honestly, I always felt myself that it was only second in objectionableness to the edifice on O'Connell Bridge. But the work, as the Senator is aware, on the far end of this building, is being carried out by the Commissioners of Public Works, at the request, no doubt, of possibly my Department and possibly the Oireachtas itself. As a matter of fact, I think it was the Dáil Committee of Procedure and Privileges which required that extra accommodation. As the commissioners are themselves carrying it out, it is hardly likely that they will serve an order upon themselves under the section.

This raises another point. It is a matter of deep public policy of course, but with all respect I think that people in such a position as the commissioners should be very chary of perpetrating such an architectural design as they are proposing to perpetrate on Leinster House.

Might I remind the Senator that the whole principle of this Bill has been discussed on Second Reading and has been agreed to by the House?

Presumably it would be in order to point out that where the section states: "A national monument is in immediate danger of injury or destruction" the phrase does not mean "injury or destruction", only of a material nature. It could also be of an artistic nature.

I do not set myself up as a judge of art. I only know that I like and what I do not like.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill"

I think I raised this matter before. Would the Minister find it possible to insert between the words "monument" and "as" in the second last line of Section 9, "or to such other suitable site". The reason is that the section at present reads:—

"Where the commissioners are the owners of a national monument as defined in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Principal Act they may, if they think it is desirable to do so, remove the monument to the site of such other national monument as they may think fit and approve."

It is possible that it would be more desirable to remove a monument to a site which is not the site of a national monument, or perhaps even to the National Museum itself, and it is to allow for that possibility that I would ask the Minister respectfully to consider the insertion of those words.

We already have power to remove it to the National Museum, but as regards removing it to another site, I think the Senator would find in practice that this would create local difficulties, which would be almost insurmountable. I think it would be much better that we should try and keep our national monuments where they are, if at all possible, and if there is a case where a national monument has to be removed, it would be better, I think, for the sake of preserving our history, to remove it to some other place that has a similar link with the past in the shape of some other monument rather than break the tradition entirely by putting it somewhere in entirely fresh and new fields. It would, I think, release a flood of requests for monuments to be moved from one place to another. This would be very undesirable.

I think there might be a good deal of very objectionable lobbying to capture various public monuments in this way if it were left unrestricted. I hope that this section will be used as little as possible. It would be very regrettable indeed if we had a kind of general removal of the national monuments of this country.

I think my amendment should at least be considered.

It would be very undesirable even in theory and very undesirable in practice.

I am afraid it would be impossible now to introduce an amendment.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 13.

I move that a new section be inserted before Section 13 as follows:—

13. For the references in Section 23 of the Principal Act to the Keeper of Irish Antiquities in the National Museum there shall be substituted references to the Director of the National Museum.

The position is that since the Principal Act was passed in 1930, the director of the National Museum has been appointed to the post vacated and not filled since 1930. It is considered better that the reports of archaeological finds should be made to the director in the first instance. It is possible, therefore, to insert the section which Senator McGuire has proposed, by way of amendment, to delete Section 13, as it is in the Bill, and also in consequence to make an amendment to substitute a new section for Section 16.

Is there any reason why the director should be appointed instead of the keeper?

There was no director in 1930. There is now.

There are keepers both then and now.

But the director is the senior officer. It means, in effect, that we are giving more importance to the reports by having them made by a more senior officer.

Amendment agreed to.

This involves the deletion of the existing Section 13.

Section 13 deleted.

Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

On that section, I mentioned on the Second Reading that the Minister had powers to appoint certain personnel to the council, and I wished to draw the attention of the House to the desirability of appointing professional officers rather than technicians, in the case of the two appointments that are made by the Minister, because we had been talking earlier on this Committee Stage about a particular appointment or two. The section states:—

"(1) The advisory council shall, on and after such date as the Minister may by Order appoint, consist of—

(a) an officer of the Department of Education, nominated for the purpose by the Minister for Education, and an officer of the commissioners, nominated for the purpose by the Minister, and".

I beg the Senator's pardon. I thought he was speaking on Section 14.

The point that I was drawing the Minister's attention to was the desirability of having people who were artistically and professionally qualified rather than having technicians.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 2:—

Before Section 16 to insert a new section as follows:—

16. Nothing in Section 26 of the Principal Act shall apply to or render unlawful digging or excavation in or under any land solely for the purpose of securing the safety of a monument or archaeological object which is in imminent danger of destruction or decay.

Perhaps I might explain the reason for this amendment. Section 26 of the Principal Act was framed in extremely wide terms and, as a result of its terms, it is technically illegal to carry out an emergency or what I might term a "rescue excavation" without a licence from the Commissioners of Public Works— that is, in respect of the specific case of excavation concerned. The present Section 16, which I am asking the House to delete, was designed to facilitate such excavation, but it does not fully rectify the position. The Minister for Education and the Commissioners of Public Works feel that rectification is desirable, since the position at present is that even a professional archaeologist might be confronted with the situation of having either to violate the law or else fail to carry out his scientific duty of preventing the immediate destruction of a monument or archaeological object.

This point was raised by Senator McHugh on the Second Reading of the Bill. The new Section 16 will enable the archaeologist who is confronted with that emergency to deal with it within the law, a thing that he was not able to do prior to the introduction of this amendment.

I should like to say that I welcome very much the modification which the Minister is making in Section 26 of the Principal Act. I think the modification will clearly enable these emergency excavations to be carried out. The wording of Section 16 in the Bill before us was very difficult. I think that the proposed new amendment meets the position fully.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Following on the passing of the last amendment, I now move: "That Section 16 in the Bill be deleted."

Question put and agreed to.
Remaining Sections and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

Would the House be prepared to give me the remaining Stages of the Bill now?

Is it very urgent? What about leaving them over to the next sitting day?

If that is the Senator's wish, I will not press him.

Ordered: That the remaining Stages be taken on next sitting day.
Top
Share