I would like, first of all, to welcome the Minister to the House and to offer him the best success in his office, however long or short the tenure of that office shall be. I would like very much to extend a general welcome to this Bill and to indicate that, so far as we are concerned on this side of the House, we welcome very much the initiative of the Government in bringing this forward and in trying to deal with this very serious area. We also welcome very much the decision of the Government to introduce it in the Seanad, where we will attempt to give it the treatment that it deserves.
This is an area of very great importance, an area that has aroused great controversy in the past. It seems to me and to all of us on this side of the House, that there is an opportunity here for a constructive approach and we certainly want to adopt a constructive approach and intend to do so. There is a place in all parliamentary assemblies for various methods of obstruction tactics, like the utilisation of Standing Orders. We certainly believe that, so far as this measure is concerned, this is not the place for that type of thing and that will not be our attitude. However, this is an important area, an area which impinges upon the activities and interests of a great many voluntary bodies, organs and institutions of the State and of local government. We consider it of great importance that this Bill be given the kind of discussion, the detailed, intelligent treatment that it deserves.
Whereas we welcome the general spirit of the Bill, the general emphasis of the Bill, there are a number of points which deserve further discussion and debate and upon which we intend to produce some amendments. Whilst we agree with what the Minister said about not delaying unduly the establishment of the council, it was brought before us with a certain amount of excessive expedition, in that it was published and placed in our hands only a very short while ago. We had very little time to examine it and to give it the kind of treatment that the Government would expect us to give it. Also, the various bodies that are concerned with this — technical, interested bodies, voluntary bodies and so forth — have not really had a great deal of time to examine it. We feel, therefore, that there is a case for extending the debate, not excessively — we are as anxious as the Minister and the Government to make sure that this council is established quickly, so that it can get to grips with the problems that exist — and will be suggesting to the Government that Committee Stage should not be brought forward too quickly so that people may be given an opportunity to discuss the Bill intelligently.
Part of the problem in approaching a Bill of this kind is that, as presented, there was no explanatory memorandum. At first glance at any rate, in general terms it is not a particularly difficult Bill. But an explanatory memorandum might possibly have dealt with some of the issues which arise and might have helped us in that respect. The Minister's very eloquent and enlightened speech has gone some way towards that, but he will appreciate that for us to give his speech proper treatment and consideration we can hardly be expected to react to it instantaneously. Some of the points of explanation which he made require further studying.
Despite what the Minister has said, it is not immediately clear what the overall purpose of this Bill is. The Long Title says that it is to make provision for the national heritage and to provide for other matters connected. But it does not specify exactly, for example, what the national heritage is. Within the context of this Bill, for example, one might well ask where does the matter of the canoe that was discovered some time ago in Lake Derravarragh — and which, we understand, is to be flung back into the waters and the wild — come into the framework of this Bill? If it is possible for the Minister in his present function, before the possible enactment of this Bill, to give us some indication of Government policy with regard to the concrete example, we would be very glad to hear, before the end of the debate, whether the Government have a policy with regard to that specific incident of the canoe discovered in Lake Derravarragh upon which it seems that public money was spent and yet this is to be cast away. The canoe, though it might be regarded as a frivolous example, does in a very real way, outline the difficulties that exist not only in terms of legislation and regulations but in terms of the provision that we make as a community for that kind of episode. It casts a certain light upon the situation with regard to the national heritage.
The Bill does not really define very clearly what we mean by "heritage". It would be of assistance if during the course of this debate we came somewhat closer towards a definition, a setting out in fairly precise terms, of what we mean and do not mean by "national heritage". Obviously one could say that the national heritage consists of those things to which we are the heirs, those things which we inherit. It is important to deal with this point with regard to the Bill because as we go through the Bill and examine it we are going to find points at which we have to take whatever our definition of "heritage" is and apply it to particular instances in the legislation and see whether the functions, purposes and role of the council as outlined in this Bill, in fact, fit in with this idea of a heritage.
Heritage is generally considered to include things which are handed on to us by a previous generation and things which we decide should be handed on to us. How are we to decide upon those things which we should not hand on? When we address ourselves to this, we are not just involved in a semantic exercise, philological, or even philosophical exercise. We are concerned with specific instances, such as the Derravarragh canoe. Is this something about which we should become immensely concerned, or is it something we have to take as part of the pattern of the contemporary situation? What about those things which we fail to hand on? Is this something which we should have on our consciences? Is this something we should make provision for?
When we are dealing with, say, something like Kinsale gas, or Posts and Telegraphs, we are dealing with very easily defined matters which we can approach — we can use a term and it is fairly easy to understand what we are talking about. It is fairly easy to suggest or to assume certain good reasons for dealing with these things. It is necessary, before we go much further in our consideration of this Bill and the council that we propose to set up, that we should at least momentarily during the debate seriously consider why we should be concerned with handing on anything. In considering that, we consider the importance and the value which we attach to this type of thing. Should we be concerned with it, or devote substantial public funds to this kind of exercise?
This is not an academic suggestion. This is the kind of question that has come up again and again, when we have had incidents concerned with conservation, with the preservation of monuments, buildings and so forth. People have asked should public funds be devoted to this matter, or what proportion of public funds? What kind of value do we set upon these things? Should we be more concerned with today and the things which come up today, rather than set aside valuable resources for something that may well be considered to be dead? If I pick up correctly the kind of thinking in the Minister's speech, and presumably it reflects Government thinking here, we must be agreed that the tendency to think only of today is not universal. It is not the way human beings behave. Human beings are concerned, it is part of our approach to life, we are concerned with tomorrow and with yesterday. We place today between those two and today is to be seen in the light of tomorrow. The reason for this is that in human history, in all living beings, but particularly among human beings because we think about this and talk about this — sometimes at interminable length — there is a very deep need to survive, to live on and to live beyond. This in a very great sense is a matter of self-preservation. I am thinking not so much of egocentric or selfish self-preservation, but of the preservation of what we are.
The Minister, being a member of the party to which he belongs and taking into account the aspirations of that party, will appreciate that the preservation of national culture, of our identity, is something which is important and something which is not irrelevant to ordinary practical politics. In talking of self-preservation, we refer to our desire, in our actions and in the decisions we make, to look forward to the future, to look forward to the welfare of our children and the kind of life that our children are to enjoy. We believe in setting aside things of value which would be of use to them and which would be part of their lives. We believe in holding on to things that are of value.
Value is very central to our discussion on the functions of this council. The whole business of evaluating, accepting, deciding what is of value and what is not, of deciding what is of greater value and of lesser value are matters we are going to have to discuss fairly deeply during the course of this debate. When we talk of things that we value, we are talking of those things that we believe in looking after, caring for, cherishing. Cherish is a good word, a good concept to have here. When we talk about cherishing we talk about something that we respect and our attitude is that the decisions we make are aimed at, or directed towards the care of that particular object.
I would like, if permitted, to go a little into semantics. When we talk about heritage and what we want to preserve in our culture, we should consider the word "culture". We should not be too ready to divorce that word "culture" from a similar word "agriculture". What have "agriculture" and "culture" in common, semantically and philosophically? They have in common, basically, a word of Roman origin which is concerned with caring for something, with looking after, with management. The words culture, agriculture and cult all derive from the same root. Cult is often in common parlance nowadays used to refer to very esoterical, bizarre practices of a pseudo-religious nature, or something like that. That is not the way it is used, for example, in ecclesiastical documents or liturgical documents. It refers to a way of approaching things which shows our veneration of them.
Worship may not be the appropriate word here, but we are talking of respecting, defending, venerating, celebrating in some cases, commemorating. Section 4 (1) mentions the words preserve, protect, enhance and develop. In other words, we are talking about ensuring the survival of something as it is, or as we wish it to be. When we talk about survival we are talking about something that is alive and not dead. I am glad that the Minister, in the course of his speech, made reference to the fact that museums are often seen as places that are musty and dead and indicated that in his view they should not be seen in that way.
Why should we concern ourselves with these things, given the economic and financial situation, given the kind of problems that exist in the world? When I quoted those words from section 4, it may have been noticed that I omitted one of the words. I omitted it deliberately because I wish to refer to it now, and that is the word "identify". The word "identify" is used elsewhere in the Bill to mean to separate something out, to lift it, to take a number of items and put them into categories — to itemise them, if you like.
The word and the concept of identity are central to our entire discussion here and to many things to which the Minister referred. It is central to much of the discussion that we have and the whole question of national culture and of our distinct existence as a nation. Again, we ask ourselves, why bother with national culture or national heritage? Why not regard it as something to be regarded as a gimmick, or some particular attraction, as you might have a star turn or a freak turn in a circus, something to be attached to tourism, something we trot them in to see, for which we take money from them and forget about out of the tourist season.
Our heritage is the point from which we start. It is the interaction of what is going on at the present time, the interaction of our own personalities, the interaction of our own circumstances; it is what makes us what we are. We are what we are. We are here and we have our assembly here in this building because we think, for some reason, or some people before us thought, that we had an identity which could only be reflected adequately by our having, for example, a separate, distinct identifiable, national parliament. Identity, in the world in which we live today, is not an abstract or an abstruse concept, maybe from philosophy, or from the more irrelevant areas of psychology. It is something that is fundamental to our way of life, that is very important to our psychological social and economic health.
Our identity, so far as we are concerned as individuals — and the same applies to us as a nation or as a community — is very evident at certain times of the year. It will be very evident during the course of the latter part of the summer and early part of the autumn in various parts of the country when people on Sunday afternoons will gather in various places for strange rituals associated with leather and wood. Our identity is reflected in the names we use. The names by which we are to be identified reflect the circumstances of birth, of upbringing, the locality from which we come, the location where we happen to be, where we operate, where we live. It is associated with memories of childhood.
Memories of childhood are very important to people, particularly in a family. If I may be permitted to use the example of my own children in this respect, one of the things that they like most to do is to sit around and talk about the things that happened to them when they were younger. This is something that bonds them together, that reminds them of whom they are, and what they are. It reminds them that they belong to each other, that they are a part of the community. It gives them a certain security, because by knowing that they belong to a group and that they belong to something that is real and strong, it secures them in the knowledge that they have a future. Part of the problems that we find in the social environment at the moment, that we hear of in terms, in particular, of the urban environment but also the rural environment, is the rootlessness that many people feel, the sense of not belonging to an identifiable community, of not belonging to something that is distinct, of alienation from the society around us, and from other people, other classes, other aspects, other factors in that society.
It is interesting here, too, to remember that when we are talking and thinking about the word "tradition" which literally in its roots is a handing-over, the same root gives us the word "treachery", the word "traitor", the concept of handing things away, handing them over, to other people who may not be our friends, who may, in fact, be alien to us, enemies, people whom we do not understand and to whom we do not wish to belong. There are, in that, various associations of capitulation and surrender.
Again, why should we bother with national heritage? Should we not be concerned more with pracatical matters, particularly in a harsh world that is making it very difficult for us to survive economically? There are massive unresolved global problems — poverty, hunger, fear, greed, war, the abuse and misuse, or neglect or exploitation of the natural resources of this globe. We live in a world dominated by super powers or by forces which have the effect of super powers. We live in a world in which much of what we grew up with is threatened by new technology and economic and commercial changes.
It is precisely because of the threats that exist in this greater world that we must consider, if we are to survive as an identifiable entity, what it is that bewitches us. We must consider what it is that distinguishes us and consider why and to what extent we should be prepared to go to maintain our identity and whether indeed we should be loyal to the concept of a national identity, something separate, not just to some abstraction of an identity but loyal to each other and to our traditions.
What are our traditions? We must identify them and we must recognise what is our common heritage. We must mark it out and cherish it. We must hold on to it as a symbol, not of a network of something dead but as a symbol of life and survival, of the continuance of the possibility if not the certainty of the future that is ours.
It is in this context that I must refer to the episode of Wood Quay. There may well be people here who feel that Wood Quay is dead that it is an issue that is gone and settled; and if they do, it may well be significant. An acid test of the effectiveness of what we propose to set up in this Bill will be to consider whether what is proposed in this Bill would have made a difference so far as Wood Quay is concerned. We may well feel that there should not have been a difference, that a lot of time was misspent on that episode. Many honourable and well-intentioned people may hold that view but Wood Quay for many people in this city and throughout the country was an event of some significance because it crystallised a number of these issues. It was not just an issue of archaelogy but much wider issues as well.
Wood Quay was uniquely ours. There are other Viking sites; there are the Norman sites; there are sites possibly more substantial, that have more exciting and glamorous contents, that may have had more lasting effect upon our knowledge of those times. But Wood Quay was something that was uniquely ours. It was in the centre of our city, not just physically but psychologically and symbolically; not just the city of "the Dubs", of the natives and adoptive natives, but the capital city.
What was in Wood Quay was not the property of kings, aristocrats or nobles but of very ordinary people who were our predecessors, our forefathers and foremothers. Should we be really concerned then about bits of leather, of stone, pottery, wood and metal? They were our people who put them there. They are our memories, our roots. There were people who wanted to sweep these away, to dump them in the Irish Sea, and to place on that site symbols which were not distinctively ours. They are not things that we could identify specifically as our property and as part of our identity, but buildings identical in many cases with a thousand other buildings in a hundred other cities all over the world.
It may well be thought that some of the sentiments expressed here are possibly chauvinistic and jingoistic, a word that has come recently into favour in other parts of the world. We would be far from that. But to take away what was ours and to put in its place what was not ours is another matter.
Should we become involved, in public time and money, with bits of sticks and stones, sometimes very dirty, and hundreds of bones that can be found in any part of the country, if we look for them or bother to look for them? It was not for their own sake; they had no intrinsic value in themselves — that is not where the value was set. They are valuable because they are associated with human beings, not any human beings, but our people. We must remember what James Connolly said. These things are not valuable in themselves. This island is not valuable in itself. James Connolly said that Ireland was nothing to him without its people, that the sticks and stones with the vegetation and bog which make up this island are nothing without our people. That soil has been sanctified and consecrated for us and given value for us by the blood and sweat of our ancestors over countless generations: they have made it ours not just for this generation but ours as trustees for the generations yet to come, who, too, will be our people. It is important to use the word "ours".
When we are approaching this question of the National Heritage Council and what its functions will be and the kind of things with which it will be concerned, it is important that we know precisely what it is when we use the word "us" or "we". I was a little alarmed at the beginning of the Minister's speech when for a moment it seemed that there was nothing in our national heritage later than Clonmacnoise. I do not think that it was his intention or that that was the overall effect of his speech, but a great deal of the controversy that has arisen in this area arises out of the fact that we are not clear in our minds about what we mean by "we". We still find people thinking in terms of "the pure Irish", which would exclude Pearse and Éamon de Valera. I often think, as somebody who has had occasion to attempt to acquaint younger people with the history of our country, in terms of our ancestors as people who had to get off a boat at some stage.
When we are talking about this kind of thing we tend to think that it is some kind of final definition of "Irish", that there was some race back there which was always Irish, which always belonged to this country. Nobody has yet shown that human life originated in this island. All our ancestors at some stage had to get off a boat: all of us at some stage had to come to this island. There is no race that has an exclusive right or title to the land apart from the Irish, and "the Irish" has a very wide definition. If we are talking about the Irish as being indivisible, whatever "the Irish" are, and it is difficult to define them at times, our heritage is indivisible.
There is a certain tendency in this Bill towards the drawing of limits. Section 4 refers to "that part of the national heritage to which the functions conferred on the Council by or under the provisions of this Act relate". Obviously one has to be practical in this: one cannot at first glance include everything in the provisions of this Bill. If we are to approach this in any constructive way, if we are genuinely to make provision for the national heritage as a whole, and there may be parts of it that do not necessarily come within the compass or scope of this Act and should not do so, it is time that we began to think of the national heritage as a whole, that we saw it in global perspective, and what we might well do is to think in terms not just of a national heritage but of a concept of a national archive. When I refer to a national archive we are back again to the Minister's reference to museums, musty, dead buildings where things are preserved in a dead state, where butterflies are dipped in spirits or whatever the appropriate thing is, and pins are stuck into them and they are stuck in a drawer and forgotten.
The concept of the national archive is much broader than that, it is "archive" in the sense of all those things which we believe should be preserved or conserved, not just buildings. One of the problems that arises in regard to this Bill is that, for example, it refers to the National Museum, but not to the National Library or the National Gallery. There may well be good reasons for this, maybe practical administrative reasons; maybe there is a reason in principle why this should be so. I should like to hear the Minister at some stage in the course of this debate give a more elaborate explanation of why the National Gallery and the National Library are not being included in the compass of this Bill. If we are to consider a site of importance we would find as matters stand that some references to it or some of the remains associated with it would be found in the National Museum at the moment, artefacts probably, but if we were to look for documentary evidence or descriptions, we would find them in the National Library. We could find some of those in the Public Record Office. We would find some of them in the National Gallery. We would find possibly on the site itself that there would be references to this in all traditions, in musical tradition, and whereas from a practical administrative point of view we must be precise, we cannot leave ourselves in a woolly kind of condition in which we would talk of all this and refuse to address ourselves to the problem dealing with it in a practical way.
It is important in this debate that we clarify why we are putting some things in one department or compartment and others elsewhere. In this context it should be said that there is a strong argument for having all those areas which are to be covered by such bodies as the National Heritage Council and the Arts Council within one area of Government. We on this side of the House would incline towards the view that the Department of the Taoiseach might be best for that purpose. I assure the Minister that I am not in any way casting aspersions on him or his ability to cope with these things or to bring to them a great interest and care in all those qualities of cherishing and so forth that I referred to earlier.
There are many arguments which would suggest that the Department of the Public Service are possibly not the best Department, leaving aside the present incumbent who is eminently suited for that post. It is not, possibly, the best Department for this purpose because I think the Minister would agree that the main scope of the Department of the Public Service has to do with the organisation of the public service, questions of pay, conditions, pensions and the like. It might well be that by placing this heritage council under the aegis of the Department of the Public Service it would fall into exactly that category to which the Minister referred at one stage when he suggested that in the past some of the functions which are considered in this Bill, by being attached to very much larger organisations which were not concerned directly with this type of thing, though not neglected, received a lesser priority than they might have received.
We ask the Minister and the Government to consider seriously whether they might not have this national council under the Taoiseach's Department. Our policy on this side would be inclined towards the idea of a sub-Department or a separate Department of Arts and Culture. That is not something that we need to get involved with at any length now, but we suggest to the Minister and the Government to consider whether they would be prepared possibly to accept an amendment to that purpose.
When talking about the council and considering this type of body, and the precedents for this type of body, we in this House might all agree that its composition will be very important. The Minister has referred to the eminent people who will be part of the council. There is a strong case for ensuring that provision is made for a certain number of the members of this council to be appointed on the nomination of specific named bodies or institutions which I will not mention now. One example is the Royal Irish Academy. There should be provision for certain reserved places on the council for bodies of this kind. It would help to promote the prestige and status of the body and help to ensure that it reflected opinions among the learned and technical bodies concerned.
I am not happy with the provision concerning how members of the council will be appointed. They are rather loose. For example, section 4 of the first Schedule states that a member of the council should hold office for such term not exceeding four years and subject to such terms and conditions as the Government may determine when appointing him. This should be clarified. There is a suggestion there that it would be possible for the Government to have an individual set of conditions for each member.
Also, I am not happy that the council may be hired and fired at the will of the Government. We agree they should be appointed by the Government rather than by the Minister, and I am not casting aspersions on the Minister or future Ministers. The fact that these appointments will be made by the Government adds to the council's status and prestige, but there have been cases, such as the RTE Authority and Cospóir, when members of bodies of this nature have found themselves abruptly no longer members. This body should be an effective body and should make an effective contribution to the whole area involved. It should not be a collection of nice nonentities who will never make decisions or produce any controversial advice which would cause differences of opinion. The Government should indicate some means by which the members of this council may be offered security of tenure, at least for a number of years, and that they do not have the threat of dismissal hanging over them if they say something unpopular somewhere.
With regard to the amendments which we intend to table, we would ask the Minister to take Committee Stage at a time which will allow all of us, including the Government and the various interested bodies, to consider these questions in depth. The appropriate time might well be the first day after the recess rather than an earlier date. We intend to publish our amendments as soon as possible so that the Minister and the Government and the other interested bodies may consider them. They may be able to show us that these amendments are ill-advised or do not contribute anything constructive. They may suggest that they do not deal effectively with the problems we are attempting to address. This Bill requires serious consideration and we intend to help the Government in doing this.
I wish to refer to the effectiveness of existing legislation for the protection of national monuments, particularly with regard to such vexed questions as the use of detection devices and the protection of historical wrecks. The Fine Gael Party in the other House put forward two Bills in this respect, one in 1978 and one in 1980, in which we proposed to update legislation in this area in order to ensure the protection of items of the national heritage. The Minister intends to consult with the council on this matter. That presupposes a time scale which may not be satisfactory. We are anxious that this council should become effective as soon as is practicable so that they can consider these problems. Irreparable damage is being done in this area. We are talking about areas of the national heritage which cannot be replaced and it is important that we bring legislation up to date on this so that it can be effective.
On Committee Stage we will propose amendments which will incorporate most of what we had proposed in those two Bills. We hope the Minister and the Government will look kindly upon them and accept them as a constructive attempt to provide protection for the national heritage where it does not exist at the moment.
I should like to refer briefly to a number of other parts of the Bill which are causing us a certain amount of concern. For example, in section 4 (2) there is a list of functions which it is proposed should come immediately under the scope of the National Heritage Council. We presume — and we would like an assurance from the Minister — that this is not an exhaustive list. As we look at the Bill as it is, and as we consider the practicalities of politics and administration, there is a certain danger that, with the best of intentions, promises can be made with regard to future actions and future functions to be added, and so on. Given the pressure of the work involved and the problems of staffing, in the normal course of events, a genuine promise having been made, these things are placed on the long finger and it takes a great deal of time and energy to bring them back onto a shorter finger. On that section we would like an assurance from the Minister and the Government that this list of functions is not an exhaustive list and that other functions will be added. We would like the Minister to indicate, possibly in greater detail, the type of things he feels he should add to the list of functions.
In section 4 (3) there is reference to "care, management, control, maintenance, improvement and development of the properties...". As an example, we can take the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park in Killarney. Included in that park is part of the Lakes of Killarney. Anybody who has connections with that part of the world and is familiar with it will know that, for many years, those lakes have been very severely polluted. I should like to know whether the National Heritage Council will have a function with regard to that type of problem. It is a problem which occurs elsewhere. I mention this park as an example. There is a severe pollution problem with the Lakes of Killarney. Is there a means by which the National Heritage Council can address themselves to that problem? In section 5 there is reference to additional functions. Again, one would like to ask the Minister to indicate, without necessarily committing himself in a binding fashion, the kind of additional functions he has in mind.
We are quite concerned about section 7. We are very worried about certain aspects of that section. For example, there is a reference to heritage buildings. Heritage buildings are vested in a State authority. Is there a particular reason why they should not be local government authorities? That is something to which we will be addressing ourselves. In subsection (2) (a), we see the word "fundamentally". That word "fundamentally" is of very considerable importance when it comes to the question of how the National Heritage Council may impinge, or may comment, or may have an effect upon incidents such as the Wood Quay incident. It has been suggested, for example, that to speak in terms of altering "fundamentally" is not sufficient. You can do a great deal to a building or to some other item of the national heritage without altering it fundamentally. We would think that the word "significantly" would be more appropriate there.
In subsection (2) (b) there is the phrase "taken into account". It reads:
A State authority shall not proceed to carry out a proposal to which this subsection relates without having received and taken into account the advice of the Council in relation thereto.
What does "taken into account" mean? Does it mean that the authority concerned read the advice given by the council, note it and then get on with what they meant to do anyway? We feel that there should be something very much stronger in the paragraph than "taken into account". In this context we would like to have it spelled out in this Bill that this National Heritage Council will be a statutory body within the whole framework of planning. There is a reference to this in the Minister's speech but it is not in the Bill. A number of people who have had a brief look at this Bill noticed this and pointed out to me that this is not spelled out in the Bill. If the council are to play an effective part in the whole planning process and if they are to deal effectively with the management of the national heritage and the whole physical infrastructure, this should be spelled out clearly.
In section 7 (3) there is a fairly comprehensive list of various kinds of categories of history. I am worried about the fact that is does not specifically refer to what might be called, for want of a better word, topographical history, that is to say, the lay-out of the physical context, not just in terms of townscapes, buildings, and so on, but in a much broader way. A reference might be made here to what is known in architectural circles as the vernacular aspect of architecture. There are certain buildings in towns and villages which almost all of us here had an opportunity to visit twice in recent months and which we hope we will not have to visit too soon again. If we looked at them we would find that certain buildings have some military or political significance. They may not fit into the categories listed here but, nevertheless, as a whole and as an entity, they represent part of our heritage. They should be included in the national archives, and we would like to see that teased out a little more.
In section 7 (4) there is a reference to a list of the heritage buildings vested in State authorities. Many local authorities have buildings which should be included in any list of heritage buildings. The Minister addressed himself in his speech to the whole problem of buildings in private ownership and private occupation. He also referred to the constitutional problems, and so forth. They are legitimate problems, but we would like a guarantee and we would like a little bit more teasing out from the Minister to indicate that this is not an escape clause, that he is not using, unintentionally perhaps, the real constitutional problem with regard to private property as a means of evading the necessity for this council to address themselves to the problem of heritage buildings in private ownership.
In section 8 (2) there is reference to the "spirit and purposes of this Act...""Spirit and purposes" is a useful phrase for employment on occasions when you do not want to be too specific or you do not want to commit yourself. We would like to see that teased out in more detail.
Section 9 (1) provides:
The Council may, on its own initiative, and shall, whenever so requested by the Minister, advise the Minister in relation to matters relating to Council's functions or otherwise relating to that part of the national heritage to which the functions conferred on the Council by or under this Act relates.
The word "shall" can be regarded as fairly definite in the sense that it would seem to indicate that there is an obligation upon the council to advise the Minister. Again this is something that should be spelled out in greater detail so that the responsibilities of the council and the Minister in this respect can be clarified.
We approve very much of the suggestion in subsection (3) that the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry and the council should consult together and have a fruitful relationship. This again raises a question connected with what was said earlier about the Lakes of Killarney. In the context of the national heritage there is the whole question of the degradation of the environment, in the case of the Lakes of Killarney a fairly obvious kind of pollution arising from the fact that the town of Killarney is situated near the lakes. A problem which has occurred in many countries is the damage done to buildings by airborne pollution, by the presence in the atmosphere — in rain in particular — of toxic and corrosive substances. This has become a very real and serious problem in some mainland European countries. We would like to have it clarified by the Minister that the National Heritage Council will have an effective function in this area.
Section 12 (4) provides:
Subsection (1) of this section does not apply in relation to the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park, Phoenix Park, Saint Stpehen's Green or the River Shannon or its tributaries.
I would be glad if the Minister could explain why that is so. We are a little worried about the possibility of fragmentation of functions, fragmentation of the role and scope of this heritage, fragmentation of the whole area of who is responsible for the national heritage in various spheres.
On subsection (5), whereas we would not like to give the officers or servants of the council unlimited draconian powers, at the same time this strikes us as a rather weak position. I do not wish to go into great detail about it now, but if one were to consider this subsection in a practical term what it says, in effect, is that an officer or servant of the council may act and do certain things, if he or she sees somebody doing something wrong within the areas under his or her responsibility. We are worried that the use of the word "sees" might well produce a situation where, if the officer or servant did not actually see the person carry out the act involved, it would be possible in a court of law to plead that no penalty should follow. We would like to see that strengthened. It might well be that that could be solved by substituting in line 3 of that subsection the word "or" for the word "and". In other words, if he sees a person doing or admitting to doing something, of if he has reasonable grounds for believing such doing or admission, he may do the other things referred to there.
On section 16 (2), when we consider the question of a report, the question of the interaction of this council with the Oireachtas, with the Government, and so forth, it underlines the importance of having a general plan for the environment, so that the actions of the National Heritage Council fit in with an overall plan and provision. Subsection (2) reads:
The Minister shall cause a copy of a report submitted to him under subsection (1) (a) of this section to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
Coincidentally we had a reference earlier to a committee on statutory instruments. We all know that in practice a reference to a copy of a report of this kind would be included on the Order Paper. As far as most of us are concerned, that is the first we will see of it and the last we will see of it. We will not actually see the publication. It is not a proper publication as such. If the National Heritage Council are to carry out their responsibilities for the environment and our heritage, what they have to say must be published clearly and must be available to people so that it can be discussed.
On section 23, we were a little surprised to find no reference to the Department of the Environment. Possibly the Minister could outline the reason for that. With regard to section 22, on the question of the engagement of consultants or advisers the council may consider necessary for the performance of their functions, it is only fair to say that there is a certain amount of unease among the associations and representative bodies of the technical staffs of the existing institutions and Departments on the whole question of the appointment of consultants and advisers. Again we need to get our minds clear on this so that we do not have on the one hand a situation in which nobody from outside may be appointed, and on the other hand a situation in which consultants and advisers are appointed to the detriment of existing staff.
Something I should like to see brought out in greater detail is the whole question of the rights of those people who are to be transferred from the civil service to this new body when set up. There is a reference in the First Schedule to terms and conditions. Section 11 (1) provides that "the Council shall hold such and so many meetings as may be deemed necessary for the due fulfilment of its functions". There is a feeling here that we might well include in the Bill a minimum number of meetings. The Water Pollution Council and the Toxic Substances Council were set up some considerable time ago. In the case of one of these bodies, the one set up in 1979, they have had only three meetings so far. One was the inaugural meeting. The National Heritage Council have immense potential. We welcome the Government's initiative. There is the danger that we could start off with a great flush of enthusiasm, excitement, bands playing, flags flying, and so on, but when it comes down to the actual practicalities we will end up with something of a whimper, and a whimper that is not very audible. Possibly by including the necessity to have a minimum number of meetings we could ensure that the council do not become an accumulation of people holding sinecures.
As I approach the final stage of my speech I should like to mention briefly a certain number of aspects which have to be teased out. There is the whole question of finance. What sort of scale of finance are we thinking of in terms of this National Heritage Council? We would be under a grave illusion if we thought this council would be effective given, for example, a typewriter and an occasional secretary and left to function with those kinds of resources and facilities. If they are to be an effective council they will need finance. This is why we believe — calling a spade a spade — this council should be under the care and protection of a substantial Department. I do not wish to be offensive to the Department of the Public Service but, in the realities of politics, they are not at the top of the pecking order. We would like to see this body having available to them the kind of prestige and financial resources which would be made available if they were under the care of the Taoiseach.
We have to be realistic about the amount of finance involved. This is linked closely with the whole question of the technical back-up facilities which will be available. As matters stand, for example, with regard to the Office of Public Works, if those people who are involved in the care of national monuments want a photograph to be taken, they have photographic facilities available within their own Department. If the National Heritage Council are to be set up as a separate body, they will require their own photographic facilities. They will require this kind of technical back-up. I should like the Minister to go into greater detail on how this is to be provided. We must have the necessary finance to ensure that the council will not be starved of resources and will have the facilities and the power to set up this kind of technical back-up.
I feel very privileged and humble to have the honour to speak on this Bill. It is concerned with an area of vital importance — and I chose the word "vital" advisedly — to our community and to our nation. I spent a certain amount of time earlier in my meagre contribution referring to the importance of national identity and cultural identity. It seems to me, particularly if one looks at the recent history of some of our neighbouring countries, that the impact upon all aspects of their life, all aspects of their behaviour as communities, of their sense of national identity, their sense of national pride, their respect for themselves, their ability to identify themselves as distinct entities is very important. We have difficult times ahead of us and, within those difficult times, we will need the help of every factor which accentuates, emphasises, enhances and cherishes patriotism. There is a profound difference between patriotism and crude nationalism. Patriotism is concerned with the consciousness that our country, our community, the place in which we live, are associated with our fathers and mothers and our ancestors generally.
I am tempted in this context to note in passing that there is a certain piquancy and poignancy, if you like, for me in addressing myself to this Bill when I happen casually to turn my eye to the Second Schedule, Part II and the item referred to under Reference No. 1. which concerns a family which in the past did some small service for the State. This is what it is about. If we are to survive and come through our present troubles, we must refresh our memories, our consciousness, and our awareness of what it is that makes us what we are. I welcome this measure. I welcome the initiative of the Government and the Minister in bringing it forward. Our attitude will be one of constructive discussion and criticism and we will propose amendments which will be chosen well in advance so that they can be discussed without party points, without partisanship, so that all of us in this House, the Government and Parliament generally can make the best contribution towards the preservation, conservation and continued survival in living form of our national heritage.
