I do not want to give the Minister any trouble about this section. It is an excellent Bill and we want it to go through quickly, but it seems to me that, though this section has been introduced rather reluctantly, it is a very good section. We may have sections of this kind in future Bills and I suggest the Minister and his colleagues should think ahead along these lines. It will not be quite satisfactory simply to say that the Institute's architect will think out a good design and that will be that. There are pretty deep aesthetic problems involved in this, and it is very much for the good of the country that they should seriously and fully be faced. I would remind the Minister and the Government that in the original Government of this country, we had a Minister for Fine Arts. I wonder if the time is not coming round when we need a Minister for Fine Arts again. At any rate, I should like to commend the Minister on having this section put in, however reluctantly.
Johnstown Castle Agricultural College (Amendment) Bill, 1959—Committee and Final Stages.
I want to take the same line as Senator Stanford. In other countries, committees are set up to deal with matters of this kind and it is not left to the opinion of one architect. Senator Barry made an admirable suggestion when he said that these matters should be referred to the Arts Council for decision. With all the wars of words and otherwise fought in this country, too few of these buildings remain. The Minister ought seriously consider this type of section in other measures. The fact that he has introduced this section, as a safeguard, into this measure shows the direction in which the mind of the Government is moving. However, I think the approach needs a more mature development to reach the stage it has reached in many Continental countries.
This Bill proposes to transfer the institution that is now and has been since 1945 in the charge of the Department of Agriculture. The Bill contains a section, Section 6, irrespective of whether the section is there reluctantly or otherwise.
We are not suggesting that.
Senator Stanford so suggested. I shall not argue about it. As far as I am concerned, there is no reluctance. When the institution is transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Agricultural Institute, the Institute will then have the responsibilities laid down in the provisions of this Bill. They have a council; they have a chairman and a director. This will be their guide. I do not know what steps they will take. I do not know whether they will consult the Arts Council. I do not know what else they may decide to do should the occasion arise in which they might be about to embark on something which might contravene or encroach upon the provisions of this section. I do not think it is for me to say what their approach should be. I am sure the council of the Institute will be very careful, either in its present form and as it will be constituted in future, to give full expression to what is contained in this section in everything they may do.
I am quite satisfied with what the Minister has said. I do not want to press it, but, on the matter of reluctance, if the Minister will read what he said when the Official Report issues, the reason he gave for inserting this clause was that it was necessary on account of existing legislation. He did not say he was delighted to point to Section 6. On the contrary, most of us, I think, detected a certain note of reluctance. I commend him for the section and I hope the Government will think along these lines in future legislation.
I think the intention of the section is to implement the desire of the donors of Johnstown Castle to ensure symmetry and harmony in any future building development there. This Bill is somewhat dear to my heart because the original Bill was the first Bill dealt with by the Seanad after I became a member many years ago. Because of that, I have a certain kindly interest in the matter. I see Senator Stanford's point. Possibly the ghost of the Vico Road still haunts him. I think Senator Stanford will agree that it would be very hard for a Minister to put all the necessary safeguards into a provision that would be workable.
Even if a committee of architects were set up under this Bill to adjudicate, one could not guarantee that there would not be a row. People's views and tastes change, even in architecture. I think I am historically correct in saying that when a certain Queen of France was being crowned in Cologne Cathedral, one of the outstanding Gothic cathedrals in the world, the cathedral was enshrouded in tapestries in order to please the architectural fashion of the time. Gothic was out of fashion. A committee of experts might be, shall we say, futuristic and they might recommend a building, very fine in its own way, but completely out of harmony. I think it is better to leave the section. If a row flares up, as it did in the case of the Vico Road, public opinion can be left to deal with it. I think that is the best way.
The Minister is to be commended for putting this section into the Bill. My only regret is that we cannot put in a section to deal with the monstrosity on O'Connell Bridge.
It is no part of my function to defend the Minister or his Government, but I detected no note of reluctance in the Minister's speech with regard to Section 6. The real difficulty about Section 6 is one which recurs constantly in legislation. We are legislating for everything in accordance with modern fashion. Here, we are legislating about aesthetic matters. It is very difficult to improve people's taste by legislation, or even to ensure that in future people will have taste. I am inclined to agree entirely with the Minister: one cannot do anything with the section beyond leaving it exactly as it is. One cannot have, so to speak, a proliferation of taste and arrangements for seeing that in future people will act in accordance with this statute. So, in this instance, as the Attorney General would say "not further or otherwise", I am entirely with the Minister.
This always happens. When a little gleam of light appears and something good is going to be done, we get Senator Hayes and others pulling down the blind and saying: "No, you cannot."
I am all for aesthetics.