Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Nov 1982

Vol. 99 No. 3

National Heritage Bill, 1982: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Amendment No. 28 is consequential on amendment No. 1. Both should be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

"`local authority' has the meaning assigned to it by the Local Government Act, 1941;".

One of the points which came up in the course of our Second Stage debate on this Bill, one of the trends of themes, if you like, that became very apparent, was the very close interest and connection between the subject matter of this Bill and Members of the House who are also members of local authorities. In other words, it is true to say that, though criticisms have been levelled against members of local authorities in the past, and perhaps in the not so recent past, with regard to their approach to the environment, it is also true to say that throughout the history of local government there has been a very substantial interest taken by members of local authorities in the environment itself.

The purpose of this amendment is to introduce into the Bill in a general way — in order to cover various other amendments and to broaden the scope of the Bill — a definition of the words "local authority" under section 1. In one instance where the phrase "local authority" is mentioned in the existing Bill it adequately covers that particular section, but we on this side of the House have put forward a number of other amendments which incorporate the concept of the local authority in the purposes and the functions of the Bill. Indeed, even if we were to leave those amendments aside, there is a strong argument for including here the concept of a local authority. I do not know whether I am in order in referring directly to other amendments at this stage, but we have, for example, taken the section that mentions State authorities and suggested that where there are heritage buildings vested in State authorities, we should also consider the concept of having buildings that are vested in local authorities brought within the compass of this Bill.

We do not think that it is a contentious amendment, even if this amendment were to be carried and none of the other amendments which refer to a local authority were to be carried or agreed. It would do no harm to the body of the Bill itself and we ask both sides of the House to agree to it.

Firstly, I appreciate the efforts that Senator O'Connell has obviously put into the work he has carried out on this Bill because of the number of amendments he has submitted. I said at the outset, on Second Stage, that it was the type of Bill that should be examined by all parties and by all interested persons here in this House and every amendment that has been submitted has been given my serious consideration.

It is appropriate that we have quite a good spell this afternoon to discuss this Bill on Committee Stage. That brings me to the amendment and the consequential amendment now before the House. These amendments are not controversial, as the Senator says. They could be described as giving the definition of a local authority for the purposes of the Act, and because of that I can certainly accept both amendments here.

I am not sure if I am entitled to refer to other amendments down the line but have to warn the Senator that I will not be in a similar position when it comes to them. I will explain the reasons why when we come to the most substantive ones. I agree with the concluding remarks of the Senator and I can, and intend to, accept the amendments as proposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 59, is consequential on amendment No. 2, so both should be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 27, to delete "Minister for the Public Service" and substitute "Taoiseach".

In the Bill as it stands, the Minister who is proposed to be responsible for the National Heritage Council and the Department who are to take responsibility for it from the legislative point of view, are the Minister for and the Department of the Public Service.

In proposing in this amendment to delete the Minister for the Public Service and to substitute the Taoiseach, I would like to make it clear, as I made clear on Second Stage, that there is nothing in any way personal directed at the Minister himself, either as an individual or in his executive capacity. At the same time, I do not want to have it thought that in any way I am criticising the Department of the Public Service, which is an excellent Department which on the whole carries out its functions very well. However, in regard to the question of what Minister is to take responsibility for the National Heritage Council there are a number of important matters of principle that come up in an approach to the whole question of the National Heritage Council.

Later on we will be talking about the definition of the national heritage. We will be considering how far that should go and how far it is dealt with in the appropriate section. The national heritage might seem objectively to be, in terms of dimension, a relatively small aspect of the whole compass of Government activities and, even within the fairly ambitious parameters which have been set out by this Bill, does not compare in size with some of the more substantial Departments or in financial responsibility in the size of the funds that would necessarily have to be voted or in the number of employees who would be involved in the way it penetrates into the life of the community. Nevertheless, the national heritage being something central, as it were, to the whole concept of our life as a distinct community and as a nation, more properly should be placed under the responsibility of the Taoiseach, as head of the Government, as the Chief Executive.

The proposal is made here because there is a symbolic significance in having the Taoiseach as the Minister or the member of the Government responsible for this area since it is so central to our whole idea of ourselves as a nation. There is a practical side to it as well. This comes under two headings. First of all, it is very clear, from studying this Bill, and its implications and how the proposals are to work in practice, that there are two major questions that arise. We have referred to these at an earlier stage. They have been brought up again and again independently by people outside the Legislature who have commented upon them and made representations. The first is the question of the composition of the council — what kind of people are involved, how that council will work as a group, what sort of dynamic they will bring to their responsibilities. That is the first point.

The second point is the question of finance. The realities are that if this council are to turn out to be a relatively minor activity, as it were, on the periphery of Government, or if they are to be submerged in a very large Department that has vast responsibilities which extend far beyond the National Heritage Council themselves, there is a very grave danger that it would be swamped in such a large Department, that it would be put on the edge and would not get the attention that they might otherwise have. A suggestion that has been made — and one to which we would be very partial — is that the National Heritage Council should specifically be put under the care and attention of a Minister of State in the Taoiseach's Department. We have not included that proposal specifically in our amendment. We have just suggested that it should be under the Taoiseach's Department.

In emphasising the importance of the National Heritage Council I would like to stress that when we had our previous discussion on this we on this side of the House made it very clear that we regarded this as a non-partisan issue, that the Bill was something to which the Seanad should devote its attention as a House of the Legislature, without getting involved in partisan point-making or anything like that. I welcome very much the attitude of the Minister throughout our proceedings so far. He referred, a short while ago, to the fact that there might well be amendments later on about which he could not be as gracious as he has been on the first one. That is fair enough.

The substance of this Bill is important. We do not want in any way to appear to denigrate the Department of the Public Service or the Minister. What we want is to see this National Heritage Council at the centre, to have a position of status and prestige in the whole area of Government activities. We feel that — to put it crudely — in the natural pecking order of the political system it would have that high prestige and status with the Taoiseach and would be closer to the centre. That is why we are proposing this important amendment. In order that this Bill and the National Heritage Council should be successful it should be in the position that this amendment would give it.

On amendment No. 2, and the consequential amendment No. 59, the Senator did raise this matter on Second Stage. At that time I explained to him that the National Heritage Council from the outset will be a very large organisation. I am talking about the body themselves now, rather than the council members. In fact, we believed that from the start they would probably employ somewhere in the region of 1,000, or even in excess of that. That puts it in the category of one of the larger, non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. It would not be appropriate, being of that magnitude, that it should be attached to the Department of the Taoiseach. It is not that I have any doubts as to the ability of the Department of the Taoiseach to take on a huge executive or administrative function of that nature. The basic functions will be governed by the council who, of course, according to the Bill will be responsible to the Minister for the Public Service. It would be unique if they were to be attached to the Office of the Taoiseach and I should say, in relation to the present Taoiseach, that he has a particular interest in the activities that will be undertaken by the heritage council. I am very deeply committed to it and I have a very keen interest in the passing of this Bill.

I look forward to taking this measure through and I hope that it will be finished in this House shortly and then be taken through the Dáil as quickly as possible. The establishment of the council will be crucial. The Senator is right, the calibre of people selected for that council will have to be people with a great commitment, a great knowledge and a great role to play. One body that comes to mind rather quickly is the National Board for Science and Technology, although by comparison to this body it is much smaller in magnitude. Again, the Taoiseach's Department are responsible for scientific research and that is probably the reason why they take responsibility for that particular body.

Regarding the Department of the Public Service, I appreciate that the Senator is not in any way condemning the Department or the current Minister. I also appreciate his comments and the spirit in which he is putting forward the amendment and the proposals. A new dynamic Department, like the Department of the Public Service, could give a commitment to play a part in the development of this council. This council will develop substantially over the years and embrace new activities as time goes on. As the Members of the House are well aware the facilities are there within the legislation for the extensions that I am thinking about, and that all or us, and also it is hoped, our successors over the years will think about how we can raise the importance of our heritage, how we can establish and preserve all aspects of it. It is one of the very important councils to be established in recent times. Its role will be a major one relating to our proud past and its preservation. I have given a lot of thought to all the amendments tabled and I appreciate the number that were tabled. In opposition I have felt aggrieved at times when the Minister of the day was reluctant to accept an amendment from me, for various reasons. However, I believe it is with the Department that will give it the greatest support. I look forward to the establishment of that council and to working with that council.

The Senator referred to the availability of finance and this is very important. The Senator should be aware that it does not necessarily mean that because the council are attached to the Taoiseach's Office they get more finance than if attached to another Minister. There are times, as the Senator should be aware, when the Taoiseach's Department have to set a headline unwelcome to themselves, although certainly there may be advantages too in having the council with my Department. The Bill will have gained in value as a result of our deliberations this afternoon and again next week, if that becomes necessary.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 20.

  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Conway, Sean.
  • Cranitch, Mícheál.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • de Brún, Séamus.
  • Fallon, Seán.
  • Farrell, William.
  • Fitzgerald, Tom.
  • Hannon, Camilla.
  • Herbert, Tony.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lanigan, Mick.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Mara, Patrick J.
  • Mullooly, Brian.
  • Nolan, Matthew J.
  • O'Keeffe, Edmond.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin J.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Wright, Thomas A.

Níl

  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bolger, Deirdre.
  • Bulbulia, Katharine.
  • Byrne, Toddie.
  • Cregan, Denis (Dino).
  • Daly, Jack.
  • Dooge, James C.I.
  • O'Connell, Maurice.
  • O'Mahony, Flor.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Hourigan, Richard V.
  • Lennon, Joseph.
  • McAuliffe, Tim.
  • McDonald, Charlie.
  • Mannion, John M.
  • Reynolds, Pat Joe.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Cranitch; Níl, Senators Belton and Ferris.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Question "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.

I move amendment No. 3:

In subsection (1), page 4, line 14, after "pride in," to insert "the national heritage and in particular".

This amendment might seem at first glance to be a somewhat pedantic exercise in grammar and phraseology. In fact it raises a fundamental question about the function and purpose of this council. I shall read subsection (1) of section 4 as it stands:

It shall be the general function of the Council to identify, preserve, protect, enhance and develop for the benefit of the public, and to foster public interest and pride in, that part of the national heritage to which the functions conferred on the Council by or under the provisions of this Act.

The section as it stands seems specifically to refer only to that part of the national heritage to which the functions and so on conferred on the council by or under the provisions of this Bill relates. In other words, what appears to be the sense of this particular subsection is that the council are to concern themselves only with those particular functions and those particular areas and spheres which are mentioned specifically or covered specifically by the functions of the council as defined in this section.

We feel this is altogether too narrow an interpretation or definition of the functions of the council. We believe that if a National Heritage Council are in fact to be a council concerned with the national heritage, they should be permitted to concern themselves with the broadest possible understanding of the national heritage.

Clearly there are practical limits to what any particular council or similar body can cope with. As well as that, it would make a certain amount of good sense that the council should learn to walk before they can run. In other words, the council should begin by taking a relatively small area and should concern themselves with that and only afterwards should they start extending their activities and concern much further. The subsection is far too narrow and does not allow for a broadening of the functions of the council. Also, it does not permit the council to concern themselves with broader aspects of the national heritage. Indeed, people could argue from the Bill as it stands and from this subsection in particular that there are very important areas of the national heritage with which the council will have no business.

We want to be practical about this. We want to have a council who are not suddenly landed with huge responsibilities with which they would not be able to cope, but at the same time we feel that if the council are to perform their general purpose effectively they must have permission to do so written at this stage into the subsection. The amendment we are proposing here does not, as it stands, necessarily load the council with a whole range of new responsibilities, financial, administrative or anything else. It does not mean that immediatley they have to take these on, but it broadens it out a bit. It offers more scope.

That is why we are proposing this amendment. The effect of the amendment is, as we have tried to achieve in the wording here, to try to talk in terms of the national heritage as a whole and in particular those aspects of the national heritage which come within the functions which are specified later on in the Bill. In other words, by proposing this amendment I am not committing the Minister to creating a vast empire that is beyond even his capacity to rule and govern. All we are doing is keeping the thing more open. We are opening it up so that at a later stage the council can consider other specific functions and so that they can concern themselves in a general way with matters of the national heritage.

For example, it could be argued on this Bill as it stands that the National Heritage Council would have no business concerning themselves with music. They would have no business concerning themselves with the language or any other language spoken or written in Ireland. It could be argued that within the terms of the Bill as it is phrased there is a somewhat narrow limitation of their function in regard to archaeological or architectural matters. What we want is a national heritage council which in their own good time will concern themselves with the broader aspects of the national heritage when matters of importance arise.

I disagree with the amendment. The new council will have more than enough to do, particularly in the early stages of their existence, to apply themselves to the specific functions they are being given. There is provision in the Bill for further duties and responsibilities to be given to them later on. The way in which the Bill is now framed is the correct way to approach this problem: the council will deal with the matters that are specifically given to them. In due course further functions will be given to them. There is a danger in having it too wide because if it is the duty of the council to concern themselves with and be responsible for the national heritage in general, we could have a situation when somebody would ask them to do something about a particular matter and we might even have action taken against them saying that as their duties are concerned with the national heritage in general they may be forced to do anything that somebody might take action about. On the one hand there is something to be said for making their powers and responsibilities fairly wide ranging, but I would much prefer to see it being done as it is envisaged in the Bill and in due course to give them further obligations and functions.

Senator Ryan has summed up my view on this amendment about the danger of, perhaps, overloading the council at their early stages. My aim is to see this council established at the earliest possible opportunity to perform the functions that we have outlined for them. Senator O'Connell on Second Stage described national heritage as having a very wide connotation, music, song, dance and even flora and fauna. That is true. I accept that definition from the Senator. However, I would fear it would place too great a load on the council in their early stages. It is important at this time that the urgency be about the establishment of the council, the allocation of their primary functions and then as time passes adding the other important ones. But to include this amendment would widen the scope beyond what practically could be achieved at an early date.

I take to heart what Senator Ryan and the Minister have said about this. But a criticism has been made to me that there is on the one hand a lack of definition of what the national heritage is and on the other hand too specific a commitment to certain matters rather than the broader national heritage, and whereas we will not press the amendment at this stage we will have to consider when it comes to the Report Stage what the general shape of the Bill is and perhaps consider moving an amendment then.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) (a) It shall be a special function of the Council to prepare from time to time a report on any degradation of the environment which it considers likely to damage or in any other way lead to the deterioration of any part of the national heritage and to furnish such report to such body, organisation, company or person as it deems responsible for such degradation, and to require a written reply within such period as the Council may think fit.

(b) The Council shall, if it sees fit, furnish to the Minister any report prepared in accordance with paragraph (a) of this subsection."

One of the functions of the National Heritage Council will be to have care for and to cherish various aspects of the national heritage and specific aspects of such. In this matter we felt that as well as taking specific care of buildings or land which have been mentioned within a specific jurisdiction, there should be written into this Bill a provision, or special function, that the council should be able to consider and comment on things that are happening in the general environment which could have a deleterious effect upon those items, as it were, which will be under the council's special care. We were talking about a degradation of the environment which the council might consider likely to damage or in any other way lead to the deterioration of any part of the national heritage. We are trying to write into the Bill the means by which the council as a body, having a special function with regard to the national heritage, may comment particularly on such matters as air pollution. It is the experience of other more industrialised countries that where industry has been concentrated in an area it has led to emissions into the atmosphere which, to take a very specific example, have had a very serious effect upon important public buildings that were part of our specific national heritage.

We would like to see written into the Bill a capacity or permission for the council to consider such a general phenomenon, something that is not specific necessarily to a building or a property but a general aspect of the environment. I take air pollution as one possibility. There is also an argument concerning noise or a concentration of traffic and other aspects of that nature which could lead to a deterioration of part of the national heritage.

I would like again to stress that it is optional for the council whether they should consider that this is a fit thing for them to do at any time. In this amendment the council would not be bound to comment on every aspect of the environment or of the degradation of the environment. We would like to have it written into the Bill that the council, if they wish, may produce such a report. We feel that with the expertise and the technical skills and knowledge that would be available to them through their servants and officers, the council more than any other body by logic would have a special function in this area and would have the capacity to perform this special function.

In paragraph (b) of our amendment we have suggested that the council may make a report to the Minister on this phenomenon and then it would become a matter for the Minister and the Government to decide what appropriate governmental action would be possible.

I must reject this amendment and advise the Senator that I see this as being a dangerous way ahead for the council. It changes somewhat my concept of what the council would be. It would be inclined to give them a policing role where the environment is concerned. I believe this to be a matter for the planning administrations. It could also be serious for the council, which I would see preferably as being positive and developmental but not becoming involved in controversies of a nature that could undermine their performance in real cultural preservation.

I urge the Senator not to push an amendment of this nature because in my opinion it would alter dramatically the role of the body as I would envisage it. This section deals with the functions of the council and if a special function of this nature were to be allocated to the council I would fear that it would alter the nature of the council as I envisage it. The policing role, I fear, would not be helpful to the council. We have planning bodies who have functions with regard to environmental problems. This amendment could well mean that the council would enter a controversial area perhaps with an overlap of functions correctly assigned to planning authorities. It would be far more desirable for the overall functioning of the council that the policing role would not be contemplated. I urge the Senator very strongly not to proceed with this amendment.

I support the amendment more seriously in the light of the Minister's response to it because I find it a very interesting response on the role of the council as envisaged by him. It seems to confirm one of the basic reservations that many of us who are concerned about the heritage would have about the heritage council. It seems as though the Minister is determined that it will be merely a body to whom certain functions will be transferred that at present are exercised by either Departments of State or the Commissioners of Public Works. Anything beyond that, any new dimension, any role, any active positive role for the heritage council is not to be envisaged.

That is very serious and indeed a very revealing initial response from the Minister to this amendment. But our role is to seek to persuade him that an amendment of this kind would be a constructive addition to the role of the heritage council and very much within the intention of the Bill, even as drafted, and would ensure that we were not just doing some sort of tidying-up process. The danger is that we have something called the National Heritage Bill establishing a National Heritage Council that is nothing more than a transferring of functions from several different bodies to one body. It would be a terrible tragedy if that was what we more or less ended up with. On the section I intend to seek some clarification and explanation of the general function of the council to preserve, identify, protect, enhance and develop for the benefit of the public the transferred functions. We can come to that when we come to the section itself.

It seems to me that the amendment proposed by Senator O'Connell is a very constructive, not just additional but relevant function for the heritage council to have. We need more than a mere transfer of the existing functions being exercised by a number of different Departments and a number of different civil servants in those Departments. We need a more active concern which can be both expressed and determined by a discretion on the heritage council to report on any degradation of the environment which they consider likely to damage, or in any other way lead to the deterioration in any other part of the national heritage.

All of us who are public representatives know that we have problems in certain areas, problems affecting local environment, problems affecting a city, whatever it may be, and that it is not something that is being coped with by what the Minister loosely called the planning authorities. Planning authorities have a specific function and role. They have legal functions and powers. But they do not have the kind of capacity which the heritage council would have if this amendment were passed to examine a particular area, to report on it and, by doing so, to draw attention to a serious deterioration in either a local area or in some aspect of our environment or our heritage. Most people, if they saw something called a National Heritage Bill, with a National Heritage Council in it, would assume that the National Heritage Council will do this kind of job. The public would be very unimpressed by a mere transfer of functions from various Departments and the Commissioners of the Public Works to be carried by the heritage council with the possibility that more functions could be transferred if the council are doing a job on the functions they have already.

The amendment addresses itself to a real problem, the real problem that we do have specific instances and specific examples. We have had very serious ones in recent years of deterioration either in our national heritage or in our physical heritage, the kind of trends that could be identified by a specialist body of this kind, with the resources which hopefully they will have. They are not going to police in relation to this. They are going to report on and therefore educate, draw public attention to and alert. The Minister, in his revealing reply, was anxious that they will not have a policing role. This seems to me to be more a role of identifying and reporting, in a context, on possible serious deterioration in aspects of our heritage.

The Minister expressed concern that perhaps the heritage council might be involved in controversy. I can understand that the Minister may be deeply concerned that a body he sets up will avoid all controversy. But there is no doubt that a heritage council will have to deal with some difficult areas, some difficult areas of conflict of interest between perhaps industrial development in certain areas and preservation of the heritage or environment, how to reconcile those. Whether the council like it or not, the fact that they are involved in an area will mean that there will be certain issues which will necessarily give rise to some controversy.

We cannot seek, therefore, in this legislation, and I would not want to, immunise a heritage council from all controversy. What we can do is to give them relevant and manageable functions. We can give them the capacity, which this amendment seeks to do, to examine and report on a specific or a feared deterioration in some aspect of the natural or physical heritage and, by reporting on it, to draw public attention to it. Then it is for the policing authorities. Then your planning authority, local government authority, the Department of the Environment, or whatever, may come in. But the job is not being done at present. This particular job proposed in Senator O'Connell's amendment is not being done. If we are having a National Heritage Bill we should try to incorporate it in it. For that reason I sincerely hope that the Minister, in the light of the views expressed in the House on the amendment, may be prepared even to think about the amendment. Perhaps on Report Stage if there is any matter about the actual formulation of the function, that could possibly be amended. If not, then I would hope that Senator O'Connell will press it.

It helps, in a constructive and relevant way, to ensure that the heritage council will not become just a bureaucratic tidying-up body by transferring functions from various other Departments to this one single body. It is well couched, as a function, to perform an important role not being performed at present and the heritage council are the right body to do it.

In the first place, even if the Minister were to accept the amendment, it would necessarily have to be limited to the area in which the council will have powers. We have already discussed that, that the council should have powers only in certain specified areas for the time being. Certainly to give them a kind of wide-ranging power to make reports about things outside that would be inconsistent with the powers under the Bill at present. I do not think the Minister should agree to the amendment. I do not think there is any necessity to give a statutory power to the council to draw up reports or to write to people telling them what they think about what they are doing wrong or what they should be doing. There is nothing whatever to stop the council at present from drawing up a report about something that seems to them to be a matter of concern, something that is contrary to the national heritage. There is nothing at all to stop them from drawing up that kind of report and sending it to the people concerned and requesting that they do something about it. That is the proper way to do it. I am quite sure that there are all kinds of similar bodies who write to people suggesting that they do something about a matter that concerns the body without having statutory power to do so. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary to have that kind of power.

If one is to write this into the Bill, if one is to give it a kind of statutory power to draw up a report and to write to somebody, having that statutory power to do that is really meaningless and useless unless there is sanction attached to it, unless they say: "We consider that you are doing something which is detrimental to the national heritage in such-and-such an area and we are asking you to do something about it and if you do not, we will take certain measures." That kind of statutory power without some sanction is quite useless and unnecessary. Certainly I would not be in favour of the council adopting a kind of policing role to do this kind of thing.

If ever there was a body in the country which should try to achieve its purposes, from the moral point of view, by pointing out how important is our national heritage, pointing out what damage is likely to be done and appealing to people to do something about it from that point of view, this is the body. If ever there was a body which should try to achieve its objects by doing it in that way, by having a moral force rather than a policing authority, this council is that kind of a body. Consequently it seems to me that this amendment is unnecessary, that the object of the amendment can be achieved without being written into the Bill. If it is to be included at all it would have to be given some sanction which in my view would be a great pity and would begin to undermine the kind of concept, certainly that I would have, of the kind of body that should be concerning itself with the national heritage. For that reason I consider the amendment unnecessary. Therefore, I would hope that Senator O'Connell would not feel it necessary to press it.

I would like to add my voice to that of Senator Eoin Ryan. I admire Senator O'Connell for the massive work he has put into the many amendments to this Bill. However, we should beware that we might fall into a trap. As I see it, this would be very much against the spirit of the Bill which in itself seeks to be persuasive rather than be of a police-like or of a prohibiting nature. Specifically to define that the council should do (a), (b), (c) or (d), to write, in an admonishing tone, to person (a), (b), (c) or (d) or body (a), (b), (c) or (d) of some nature — as I see it — would be against the spirit of the Bill. As Senator Eoin Ryan said, the Bill appeals by persuasion rather than by prohibition. Also on this amendment we should be beware of defusing ourselves, seeking to involve this council and Bill in areas and Departments and by so doing to strip them of their essential ingredient which should be to identify, preserve, enhance and look after our heritage in all its aspects. If we involve ourselves, which we would be in this way, in the Department of the Environment, in all sorts of areas then we will be reducing the strength of the Bill. In the very course of time, as the council become established, as they find their feet and find areas in which to get involved, things of the nature of which we speak will arise naturally rather than being defined I should prefer to see the Bill remain as drafted with the definitions coming later, if necessary.

I want to respond to the kind of point that Senator Eoin Ryan and now Senator O'Rourke made which seems to misconstrue the nature of the amendment. They say they regret the moving away from the idea of persuasion, that this would be in some way a policing function — using the Minister's term — but, in the same breath, Senator Ryan referred to the absence of a sanction. That is where the nature of this amendment reveals itself. It is not imposing a sanction, that is not the role of the heritage council. But it is conferring an additional function on the heritage council — and they are a statutory body and therefore must act within their statutory powers — to examine and report on some serious deterioration in or degradation of the natural or physical heritage with which the council are particularly concerned. If the bodies or body that the heritage council wrote to did not reply or in some way were not receptive to, or obstructed the compiling of the report, that would just form part of the report; the heritage council would refer in the report perhaps to the correspondence or certainly the attitude of particular bodies or individuals. That could be extremely important. We are talking about a necessity. We know as public representatives that there is a need for more to be done about preserving and protecting our heritage; there are so many threats to it, even from the kind of industrial development that may be increasingly necessary to provide jobs.

In this Bill we do not want to do a bureaucratic job of transferring functions to one body that previously were exercised by a number of other bodies. We want to confer on this statutory body a statutory function, to be exercised in the form of a discretion, where the need arises, to report on a situation. It is not a policing function because there is no role in policing. It is not a function that requires sanctions because it is not the job of the heritage council to sanction anyone. It is their job to report to the Minister and, indeed, by compiling a report to highlight an issue of public concern.

The objections being raised on the other side of the House are not real objections because they are not addressing themselves to the nature of the function proposed in this amendment. Senator Ryan said that in his view it should be open to the council in any case to report in this way. If that is the case, then why object to the amendment? Why not have it expressly in as an additional statutory function? I would have a doubt about how far the heritage council could engage in functions that were not clearly stated in the Bill but that has to be construed from subsection (4) which says that the council may do all sorts of things as they consider necessary or expedient for or incidental or supplementary to or consequential upon the performance of their functions under this Act. I doubt if this kind of function would be within subsection (4) and be consequential on other functions because those other functions are transferred functions in the existing situation. We do not have this additional protection that the amendment seeks. Therefore we want this additional protection; we want it written in expressly but the language, quite properly, for the reasons identified, is not policing language and is not language of sanctions. It is language of having a discretion to report and identify deterioration in the environment by a body called the heritage council properly equipped to do it. Let others, then, police or take steps afterwards if the report is one which draws attention to such serious deterioration or degradation that something should be done, not by the heritage council but by other bodies. This would not in any way distort or undermine the proper role of the heritage council.

With respect to Senator Robinson it seems to me that the Opposition wish this National Heritage Bill to be all things to all men. It is not and in attempting to do so we would be undermining its very basis.

Senator O'Rourke has put her finger on the point that is at issue between the two sides of the House here. The Minister seems to be content and the Senators on the far side seem to be intent to bring in virtually the narrowest Bill possible, merely to transfer existing functions widely scattered throughout various agencies. The Bill to which this House gave a Second Reading, by its very Long Title, has a wider function than that, to make provision in regard to the national heritage.

The point that underlies many of these amendments is that we cannot make adequate provision in regard to the national heritage on the narrow power enshrined in legislation which we have inherited. What we want here is a new departure. We have waited long enough for a Bill of this type. We have had promises of amendment of the legislation in regard to our heritage, in regard to ancient monuments. When eventually we get a Bill we find that it is narrow in scope. Throughout the Bill — not just in regard to this particular amendment, though this is a key one in this regard — we must ensure that the Bill, as it leaves this House, does empower the new National Heritage Council to do the job for which they are set up. If we leave them with inadequate powers we will have botched the job we are trying to do.

We have already discussed under an earlier amendment whether or not the council should have general powers or whether for the time being they should be confined to the functions which have been transferred to them. It has been agreed that it is appropriate to confine them to these functions for the time being bearing in mind the fact that there is provision for giving them additional powers as time goes on. Consequently to give them — as Senator Dooge seems to be suggesting — this rather far-reaching function would be inconsistent with what we have agreed already. It is conceivable that the amendment now before us could be introduced to deal with the functions which are specifically given to the council. Certainly I do not think it could do more than that at present.

My principal contention about the amendment is merely that I do not think it is necessary. I am always against giving specific powers of this kind to a council who already have the power under subsection (4) which says:

The Council may do all such things as it considers necessary or expedient for, or incidental or supplementary to or consequential upon, the performance of its functions under this Act.

Certainly that gives them the power to make reports and write to people and ask them to do certain things and perhaps report to the Minister if they are not going to do it. That is quite sufficient. If you are going to spell out every single power that the council has, are you going to have an amendment saying that they may write letters? Are you going to have an amendment to say that they may publish articles? If you do not give them these powers by implication are you saying that they do not have these powers?

I do not think the incoming council would thank you for trying to define and by doing that limiting their powers by implication because if they are not given the specific power to do a certain thing then is it implied that they do not have it? Surely to write to somebody, to make a report about something, draw up a report about something that is detrimental to the national heritage, writing to the people concerned asking them to do something about it, is permissible under the powers they have already. If you are going to give them that power specifically then are you going to give them the power to do 101 other things which I think they could already do under the section?

The discussion we have had on this amendment has been extremely interesting. It has highlighted two very important points in two areas. These two points will have to be solved at some stage in the consideration of this Bill as a whole. They are points that have been made by speakers on both sides, something that has emerged from the discussion. I am not suggesting that the Chair is not maintaining good order but our discussion has moved away from the specific matter of the amendment into general principles.

Senator Robinson in her contribution, which was a much more eloquent proposition of my amendment than my own, put her finger on a crucial aspect of this Bill and a crucial aspect of what kind of council we are going to have in that she took up the point that the Minister made with regard to controversy. I agree with Senator Robinson very strongly that we would like to have a Bill and a National Heritage Council which would not have any built-in controversy. We would like to have a National Heritage Council who were never going to be involved in any controversy, if we could guarantee that no controversies were going to arise over the national heritage. But we know very well — and some of us have very strong, bitter, personal experience of this — that this is an area where very strong emotions have arisen, where very strong points of principle have come into conflict, where crucial principles concerning the kind of society, the kind of community we live in, what we want to preserve and why, have arisen.

Arising out of the Minister's very revealing comments there is a suggestion that the kind of council he envisages will be a fairly mild affair. For example, in this context, Senator Ryan spoke of the moral force. Those of us with a slightly historical trend might recollect that the idea of moral force or the force of public opinion was raised by a certain distinguished politician in the earlier part of the 19th century. In fact it was the main platform of his kind of politics. However, in the context of our discussion here, the suggestion is that the council should operate on moral force alone. Senator Robinson raised the question of sanctions. Indeed in considering our amendments I have begun to have extreme qualms of conscience about them; I have begun to feel that possibly they lack moral force or strength, that they lack the kind of teeth and vigour that they might possibly have, that in a way they are very timid. As a Legislature we will have to face the question of whether we should provide the National Heritage Council with sanctions, whether it should be a body that has the right to say: "Thou shalt not do such-and-such a thing and, if you do, God help you because we are going to come along and we are going to get you." That is putting it in rather crude language. Throughout the Bill as it stands — and, I will admit readily, throughout our amendments — there is a tendency to say: "You are naughty, you are bold, you must not do that".

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would confine himself to amendment No. 4.

I am in fact speaking about it. I am speaking about the discussion.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are not speaking on the section in general. We are just on the amendment.

Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. The amendment as it stands proposes that the council should have the special function to make a report about a degradation of the environment, that they should communicate this report to the people whom they deem responsible or concerned with it. But even the amendment as it stands does not really specify what happens subsequently; it leaves that somewhat in the air. I believe this is a point that has been brought out by the discussion here.

The second point brought out goes back to the same problem of the general and the particular, the question of how the council are going to carry out their functions. The reason we put forward this amendment was that we believed that in considering how, in a practical way, the council was going to perform the specific functions as set out in the Bill, specific functions of looking after certain specific buildings, properties and so on, lands and what is on those lands, they should be able adequately to do so. A point made to us by experts was that under certain circumstances threats could arise to items of national heritage and, in particular, specific items that will be put under the care of the council from outside the function or jurisdiction of the council, I am thinking specifically of air pollution.

If the National Heritage Council find that buildings for which they have responsibility are subjected to an environmental degradation arising from outside their specific jurisdiction, from factories or some other source, how are they to react? The point also was made that the council should not be given certain general powers to be able to take on any responsibility they like, but in this area we are being specific. We believe that when it comes down to it it is difficult to decide in an area such as this who has the responsibility for a problem of the nature we have put forward.

The amendment has raised two general problems which will have to be solved at some stage during the passage of the Bill. The first is the question of whether the council will be a nice group of moral force people who will issue a few nice statements and expect people to be good, or whether they will have some substantial sanctions behind them. The second point is this clash that will arise again and again between what arises from the specific functions as outlined in the Bill and the more general functions with regard to the national heritage as phrased in the Long Title of the Bill. The Long Title states "the national heritage."

Unfortunately, I must depart to a meeting of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities but I want to respond to two points made by Senator Eoin Ryan. Senator O'Connell referred to this amendment and to our approach to the Bill. The amendment seeks to confer an additional special function on the National Heritage Council. We have not determined, as a House, what functions the Council will have and, therefore, the amendment is perfectly in the context of determining the functions. This is a function which we submit ought to be fulfilled by a body like the National Heritage Council. Therefore it is properly put forward. It is not in conflict with the narrowing decision taken earlier. We can still, in the context of that narrow decision, decide what the functions of the National Heritage Council will be.

Secondly, I must disagree with Senator Ryan in his estimation that the special function outlined in the Bill would be implied in the consequential powers of the National Heritage Council under subsection (4). Subsection (4) is the formula uesd to describe incidental functions which are related to the particular properties outlined in the remainder of the section. They are transferred functions. None of the bodies who have these functions at present have the special function that is referred to. None of them would feel they could exercise it. Therefore, I submit it could not be implied as being consequential power in transferring it to this new body. It is something that requires to be written in the form of an amendment which I support. I hope to return later but I must go temporarily.

Before the Senator departs I should like to make a few points. In the debate on this amendment we have strayed quite a bit and I ask the indulgence of the Chair while I quote from my Second Stage speech to put the Senator in line with the purposes outlined then. I said then:

The question may well be asked why the council is not being given a broader range of functions and responsibilities at this stage. The Government's immediate priority has been to establish a council and to give it a basic framework of functions and responsibilities. It will be possible, however, to assign further functions to the council later by way of order. Such orders will be subject to resolutions in Dáil Éireann and so there will be an opportunity for debate on the new functions as they arise. There are many other measures which could possibly be taken to ensure the preservation of the national heritage. I have already mentioned the possibility of new legislation in connection with national monuments, detection devices and other related matters. The National Heritage Council will, of course, have an opportunity to make a significant contribution to the formulation of such measures.

That was my contribution and I quoted it for the Senator's benefit. It is an essential purpose of the Bill. Being a practical politician, and a realist in life, I want to establish that council as soon as possible to get to grips with a situation that has needed to be tackled for some time.

With regard to the amendment before us, I would love to think that we could immunise — a term used in the House — this body from controversy. Of course we cannot. Certainly, I hope that we will not lead this body further, particularly in their infancy, into any further unnecessary controversy. It is understandable that there will always be certain groupings in favour of various aspects of development as against preservation. Unfortunately, there will be difficulties, and imposed difficulties, for the council. There is no doubt about that and because of that the council will have to face some controversy, perhaps a lot, but I do not see a benefit in the terms of the amendment. It is changing the role of the council as I envisaged it, and giving it a policing role. There is no doubt about that. I appreciate the effort Senator O'Connell has put into the preparation of these amendments. I may have sounded a little negative in regard to earlier amendments but I should like to assure the Senator that that will not be my attitude in regard to all the amendments. I appreciate that the Senator put in superb work in regard to this. However, I have fears that the amendment under discussion will not contribute to the formation of a better council.

I envisage that it would change the role of the council from a dynamic approach and get it into an area that involves controversy. This Bill is not a political controversial measure, it is an effort by all sides to get the best legislation through quickly. We are talking about a fairly substantial group of people in the transfer of functions.

Senator Robinson may have been under a misapprehension in this regard. It will be one of the bigger non-commercial State bodies with about 1,000 people involved when all the functions allocated are taken over. It is a comprehensive undertaking for the council. The opportunities being given for further functions to be transferred and allocated is the right and fastest way forward at this stage. It is an area which needs urgent attention. I urge the Senator not to push the amendment. I have examined closely all the amendments tabled by the Senator.

I should like to advert to something Senator Ryan said earlier and go on to something which the Minister has said now. Senator Ryan suggested that we had already decided in this House to accept a narrow interpretation of the Bill and the functions of the Heritage Council. That is not so. Amendment No. 3 was debated and withdrawn, and that withdrawal is not an acquiescence that this matter has been concluded. Amendment No. 4 contains a crucial point. We have been discussing it across the floor of the House and we should take a look at the record of the debate and return to it on Report Stage. It may be that between now and Report Stage we on this side of the House might, taking account of some of the arguments which the Minister and the Senators supporting him have made, consider that this amendment might be drafted in a slightly different way. Equally the Minister might on reading over this debate think that something which is being sought in amendment No. 4 could be done without affecting the Minister's prime objective which is of getting a heritage council without undue delay.

The Minister in his opening speech assured us that his mind was not closed on the contents of the Bill and that he was prepared to consider suggestions that did not involve undue delay. He could without undue delay be able to get an amendment on this section which could achieve this purpose. But we will not do it by arguing backwards and forwards here today on the precise amendment we have before us.

I welcome the effort of Senator Dooge to get us over our difficulty. Provided Senator Dooge is prepared to accept this — I could not make any commitment to accept any amendment on Report Stage — I am prepared to read what has been said today between now and Report Stage. I fear that the amendment envisages a different role for the council. I fear that may inhibit me from being able to come up with a suitable amendment but I am prepared to look at it between now and Report Stage provided Senators accept that there is no commitment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 5 is consequential on amendment No. 81.

Government amendment No. 5:
In subsection (2) (d), page 4, lines 36 and 37, to delete "Part III of the Second" and substitute "the Third".

Basically this is a technical amendment. There is no major change proposed. The title of the Second Schedule is Properties In Relation To Which The Council Performs Functions and it is intended that the Office of Public Works should retain responsibility for a number of buildings or properties in the Phoenix Park. These properties are at present listed in part 3 of the Second Schedule. As the council will not exercise any function in relation to these properties it is felt that it would be more appropriate to list them in a separate Third Schedule. The function of the amendment is to provide an appropriate citation for those properties in the Phoenix Park which will continue to be the responsibility of the Office of Public Works. It is felt that the properties concerned, Aras an Uachtaráin, Ordnance Survey Office, lands formerly occupied by the Phoenix Park national school and certain lands used by the Minister for Defence and Justice would be most appropriately managed by the State.

For once we are happy to agree with the suggestions.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:

In subsection (3), page 5, line 12, after "this Act" to add "and shall secure from any State authority or local authority whose functions impinge upon these properties whatever action or co-operation is appropriate to fulfil the purpose of this subsection".

This amendment is proposed in order to make the point that the council in undertaking the "care, management, control, maintenance, improvement and development of any property acquired by or transferred to it, under this Act" shall secure from any State authority or local authority whose functions impinge upon these properties whatever action or co-operation is appropriate to fulfil the purpose of the subsection. The amendment speaks for itself. There is the possibility of a conflict of interests or there may not be immediate agreement between the council and State authority or local authority. A State authority, or local authority, may not necessarily be named in such a situation but their activities may impinge directly upon the functions of the council in relation to a property. It should be stated in the Bill that the council can require this co-operation and action in fulfilling the purpose of the subsection.

The functions concerned in this subsection will, following the passing of the Bill, become the functions of the council and thereby will cease to be functions of the commissioners. The Senator should note that in section 26 all State authorities whose functions are being transferred to the council may provide such services and facilities which may appear necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling the council to perform its functions. Most of what the Senator has asked for in the amendment is contained in section 26. If the Senator accepts that I am prepared, between now and Report Stage, to look at one slight alteration in section 26 which may meet his amendment, and that would be the possibility of substituting "shall" for "may". Section 26 seems to cover most of what the Senator seeks.

Far be it from me to urge that there should be too much shilly-shallying on this section. The Minister has put his finger directly on the point, the difference between "may" and "shall" and I look forward to his proposal on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, between line 12 and 13, to insert the following new subsection:

"( ) The Council shall as a matter of expediency establish a Central Conservation Laboratory to provide the technical services required by its functions under this Act."

I should like to thank the Minister for his kind remarks with regard to these amendments. I would claim a certain paternity for at least some of the amendments but the point I should like to make is that these represent not so much my own individual efforts but the results of a very wide consultation with people who are directly concerned with such activities. I should like to pass on the kind words of the Minister to those people who, obviously, in most cases must remain anonymous, to whom they properly belong. The point we are making in the amendment is in regard to the technical aspect of the council. The Minister has made the point several times, and he should continue to make the point, that he is in the process of planning, and we are participating with him, the creation of a very substantial body with a big number of employees, servants and officers. It is also one that will have among the personnel a high level of expertise, education and experience. We are attempting to bring together under the care of one council a substantial number of people who are concerned with the technical aspect of the conservation and preservation of aspects of our national heritage. It is essential that we rationalise and make the best use of those technical facilities.

The purpose of my amendment is to propose that the council should, as a matter of expediency, establish a central conservation laboratory to provide the technical services required by its function under the Bill. We envisage not just a central laboratory which would serve the purposes of the council but, without again extending the responsibility of the council — we do not mention it as such in the amendment — there is a case for some kind of central facility of expertise available not just within the functions of the council but also in other areas and among other people. It may seem redundant to mention this specifically here but we want to make the point that at the moment the facilities which are available are scattered through a number of different organisations and different parts of the governmental structure. In many cases they are totally inadequate. It is a fair comment to say that the facilities of the National Museum, though it has some, are totally inadequate for its present responsibilities. It might be a distortion of the truth to suggest that the facilities the National Museum has can be described as a laboratory; they could be more properly described as a workshop hidden away in the depths of the National Museum with, under the circumstances, very inadequate facilities. I am not casting aspersions on the staff who attempt to work there, but the facilities are not satisfactory.

One of the functions of the National Heritage Council must be to bring together all the facilities which are available already within the bodies that are to be rationalised under this Bill and, indeed, to provide extra ones where gaps become obvious as a result of the examination that will take place on rationalisation. We are devoting a certain amount of time to this Bill, we are taking it very seriously, but in the context of the total activity of the Seanad and of the other House it represents a relatively small part. Once the Bill has been passed the real work of implementing its provisions will have to be undertaken. It is clear from what the Minister has said, and from our discussion, that that will not be a week's work or a month's work but will involve a very exhaustive examination of facilities. One of the things we hope for is that in the course of this rationalisation process the council will become more aware of the gaps that exist in existing facilities and of the necessity for introducing new ones or enhancing or improving existing ones.

We have tabled this amendment because we believe this is a critical aspect of the practical side of the council's activities. It is central to the proposed activities of that body that it has available to it a corps of dedicated technical experts and the necessary facilities. In bringing these people together and putting them, as it were, under one roof we will give to that aspect of the National Heritage Council's functions that extra status and prestige which will enable it in the crude market place of public finances to get a good share of whatever happens to be available.

I am happy to be back so speedily. For some strange and inexplicable reason the Joint Committee did not sit. I support the amendment which has been fully outlined by Senator O'Connell. I invite the Minister seriously to consider it again as a constructive and justifiable extension of the functions, the operational powers, that the National Heritage Council will have. The Minister quoted from the text of his speech on Second Stage, rather than from the Seanad debate. Could I refer him to the passage that he did not begin with, but might have — the sentence just before he began his quotation of his own words in the Official Report of Wednesday, 30 June 1982, Volume 98, No. 6 at column 530? He began that paragraph by saying:

Before going on to deal with the functions proposed for the council, I would like to stress to the Members of this House that my mind is by no means closed on the contents of the Bill.

Ministers say that from time to time and sometimes it is true. I hope that by clearly stating it on Second Stage the Minister really meant that his mind is open, not just to some of the amendments we will be dealing with which have been tabled by the Minister, but also to some of the constructive amendments offered from this side of the House.

I will not delay the House in supporting this amendment. The reasons for it and the need for it have been very cogently outlined and summarised by Senator O'Connell. We must avoid the lowest common denominator with which we are faced in this Bill, that the heritage council are merely an administrative body to cope with transferred functions. We could re-title them, if that is all they are. This is a comparatively modest proposal in any kind of expenditure or outlay which is appropriate for the present, but it would be a very relevant one to enable the heritage council to perform the functions which they are being asked to perform. It would make sense of the business of transferring the functions. Why transfer them unless whilst transferring them we are to some degree transforming them by way of improving the way in which they will be exercised?

May I say, before the Minister rises, that there is one point which arose from what Senator Robinson said? Clearly, we should not tie the hands of the council because they will have to bring together the technical facilities that are available throughout the area they are rationalising. That aspect of the service will have to be created. The reason for this amendment is to underline the importance of this function in the whole area of the council's activities and also to make it clear that this is a facility which, at some later date, the council may utilise or make available from this laboratory to people outside the actual functional area of the council. I made it clear earlier on that in no way are we tying the council to make this available. We are not saying that they shall make any facilities available — we are not saying anything about them at this stage. But we want to give them a certain status and prestige. We want to have available, within the area of the national council, something of this nature.

First of all, I do not like bandying words with any Senator but I will reply again to Senator Robinson who strayed away from the amendment. I hope I have already demonstrated, from my handling of this Bill, the validity and truth of the commitment I made on Second Stage when I complimented Senator O'Connell and his colleagues for their excellent effort. I hope I have already shown them from my response to the amendments put down that that was and continues to be my intention. I agree with what the Senator says but I disagree with the way he does it, for the very reasons which he himself outlines. If we establish a council of experts we should not specifically say to them that they should establish a central conservation laboratory. Should that be their intention they may well prefer to put their own proposals forward. An approach with which I would agree is that, if the amendment were withdrawn, I could obviously draw to the attention of the council the comments made here in the debate. I do not disagree with anything the Senator has said, but I am not so sure that we should tie the hands of the experts we appoint. It would be unwise for us to do that. They should be the experts in the field and I have already made a commitment on the quality, experience and expertise of people I would like to see on that council. We should leave it to them to decide finally, but I could have the Seanad debate and the comments made here drawn to the attention of the council when they are established.

I welcome the approach of the Minister, both generally to amendments and specifically to the approach to the objective to be achieved here, but I would raise a query. Perhaps this is a matter which should be given further consideration and might be the subject of an amendment on Report Stage. The heritage council, because they are being established as a statutory body, can only do what they have statutory power to do. Words spoken, either by the Minister in this House or by Senators in this House, although they may indicate a view that was current in the House, do not confer any authority or any statutory power on a body like the National Heritage Council. I would not like us to fall between the two stools, that the Minister is in agreement with Senator O'Connell and with those of us who support him as to the objective, but that we have failed to provide the power and, therefore, the capacity for the heritage council in due course to establish the specific central conservation laboratory proposed here or a like facility to achieve the objective. I do not like ministerial assurances, nor am I questioning the Minister's spirit. I appreciate the spirit in which he is saying what he is saying but I am very anxious that we do not fall into that trap into which many good intentions have fallen in the past, that we have expressed words but have not achieved them in the legislative intent.

I repeat that I am not concerned with what the Senator thinks of my ministerial assurances. That is for her to decide.

Over long experience, Minister.

For some reason, there appears to be a little bit of cross-fire when the Senator enters the arena, which has been absent on other occasions. I am not very concerned about the Senator's approach to ministerial assurances. I am specifically saying in this House that such powers will exist on the passage of this Bill. Such powers will rest with the council. We, as legislators, cannot claim to have the complete expertise as to the type of laboratory that is needed. I share Senator O'Connell's comments about the necessity for such a facility but I am not saying that the type of facility spelt out by him is the right one. I would not be competent to say that. I tried to help what I thought was a good proposal. It would not, in my opinion, be appropriate by way of amendment to enter into the Bill specifically what type of conservation laboratory should be set up. The council may well decide that this is not the way they wish to approach it, and if they are more expert than I, or my fellow legislators, then I would feel that I was being unfair in accepting this by way of amendment, and it was merely as a compromise effort that I was trying to arrange that the Seanad debates be brought to the attention of the council. Of course, I accept Senator Robinson's contention that the contents of the Official Report are not legislative or compulsory. On the other hand I am sure that any well-intentioned and good meaning heritage council carrying the expertise would certainly know the consequences of what was said here about the desirability of setting up such a body, tailored and designed to best suit the needs of the council.

First of all, the Minister was being somewhat unfair to Senator Robinson in using the word cross-fire concerning her comments.

I am sorry, perhaps I was. I withdraw that word.

The Minister agrees that the basic principle here is to make sure that the National Heritage Council will provide adequate technical facilities. Would the Minister be prepared to consider going a little beyond what he has offered so far and consider introducing some form of amendment on Report Stage which need not necessarily mention a central conservation laboratory as such, but would make the point within the Bill that technical services were going to be brought together and rationalised?

On that point, it is helpful to get clarification at this stage and perhaps we can come back to this on Report Stage. Could the Minister indicate on the record where he sees the power as existing? If I understand him correctly, he says the power under this Bill in effect already rests with the National Heritage Council to establish a body such as the central conservation laboratory, or an alternative equivalent facility for technical services. It would be helpful to us if the Minister could indicate under what section or subsection he sees that the National Heritage Council already have that power.

In section 4 (2) (a) that function is transferred to the council, and with the transfer of that function to the council that gives them the opportunity of setting up a laboratory of the type suggested by Senator O'Connell. I would say to both Senators that I do not disagree with them and take entirely Senator O'Connell's submission that it is an important function. Quite honestly, I do not like the idea of specifying to the council what they should do. If we put ourselves in the position of being appointed to a council on which we would regard ourselves as having some expertise and are appointed either in the capacity of chairman or member, our reaction would not be kind to the legislators who told us how we should operate. That is why I would prefer if it were not written in. I want to be absolutely sure that the powers are conferred. I am informed that they are under section 4 (2) (a). I take the Senator's point, because without that type of body or some variation of it — would the Senator look at section 4 (4)?

That might be more appropriate.

Of course, section 4 (4) is very generalised. Our worry here is that while people have been discussing the National Heritage Council and what its functions are to be and so on, they have necessarily been concerning themselves with inadequacies in the current situation. Again and again, the point is raised that either the facilities available to specific bodies are inadequate, or that there is a lack of rationalisation of such facilities.

What I would hope to see, before we finish with this Bill, is to have it written into the Bill in some way — and I think the Minister is being over-scrupulous in this aspect in talking about tying the hand of the council. I would regard it as one of the major functions of the council to get on top, if you like, of the technical aspect of things. I do not think that in any way we are tying the hands of the council unnecessarily in this respect. I would not be satisfied with the Bill if it left us without a specific mention of the technical aspects of the council's functions. I do not doubt that the Minister's assurances are extremely valuable ones and beyond doubt, but there is still the possibility that the Minister might no longer be in that Department. He might be in another Department within a short time, or elsewhere.

Be relieved.

All sorts of strange things happen. We would then be left saying that such and such a Minister gave an assurance. We have discussed this long enough, but I would not be satisfied with this Bill if there was not a specific reference to and a specific pinpointing of the technical aspect of the council's functions. I look to the Minister to consider that and perhaps come back on Report Stage.

Would it help the Senator if I said to him that between now and Report Stage I would establish specifically that the powers that we have spoken about are there?

Yes, it would.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following new subsection:

"( ) The Council shall have the power to establish statutory sub-committees."

The power the Senator is seeking for the council is contained in paragraph 12 of the First Schedule. He may decide that that covers the matter.

I see the destination to which the Minister is driving here. I would not be sure whether this adequately meets what I am looking for and whether, in fact, the committees as established under the schedule could accurately be described as statutory committees or sub-committees. I would have to seek guidance on that, possibly from the other legal advice available within the Chamber.

For once, if it is any help to the Minister, I would side with him on this. It does seem as though the schedule so provides, unless there is some particular concern of Senator O'Connell. The powers in the schedule are quite broad.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following new subsection:

"( ) (a) The Council shall have regard particularly in respect of the provision of museum and display facilities and those amenities which it considers appropriate to its functions under this Act, for the needs of regions and areas of the country outside the geographical area of the County of Dublin;

(b) Any State authority or local authority which proposes to establish a local, county or regional museum shall consult the Council in respect of its plans for such a museum."

Again, one thing that has come out very strongly, and there is a related amendment elsewhere, is the very strong feeling that people have in discussing the national heritage that there is a tendency for the metropolis to gobble up and call in to itself — possibly subsume would be a good word to use here — and to accumulate various aspects of the national heritage. Again and again in public discussion of the National Museum or related institutions one comes across the suggestion that there should be a wider sharing throughout the country of those artefacts and properties that are available in the National Museum in Dublin, that these should be shared more widely, should be on display and should be available to people outside the capital. Again there will be those, possibly, who might insinuate that a Senator making a suggestion of this kind is indulging possibly in stroke politics of some kind and that this is merely a sop thrown to his constituents outside the geographical area of the County of Dublin. I would like to reject such a suggestion outright and with the maximum of indignation. This proposal stands on its own, objectively. Paragraph (b) states that any State authority or local authority which proposes to establish a local, county or regional museum shall consult the Council in respect of its plans for such a museum. This has been included so there shall be a formal way by which some such body intending to establish a museum — and I hope museum will be interpreted as broadly as possible — should consult the council. Obviously, if the council is established and if it is a good council it might well be that such a body would want to do that on its own accord. It is worthwhile to have set down definitely here that consultation should take place, so that what emerges from any plans of this kind should take cognisance not just of localised needs but also of needs of the country as a whole. Again, I would recommend to the Minister that he look at this and other aspects of the council to make sure that the council is truly national in its scope.

Once again, this amendment may raise an essential difference that is running through the approach on this side of the House as distinct from the Minister's approach to the establishment of the National Heritage Council and its functions. Senator O'Connell is proposing in this amendment to extend to some extent, rather than merely transfer a function to the National Heritage Council. In section 4(2)(a) we have the transfer of the functions in relation to the National Museum as at present and in relation to the Dublin Science and Art Museum Act. What the Senator is seeking to do is put some sort of legislative quality on that transfer, to direct or highlight an objective in the transfer, not simply to transfer the functions, which would seem to be a very limited and very bureaucratic process. Of course, there are very important functions, but simply to transfer them in a Bill which we call the National Heritage Bill to a body that we call the National Heritage Council seems to be really dodging our responsibilities in the matter.

Once again, what the Senator is seeking to highlight expressly is a very real need. It is necessary and it should certainly form part of our debate. I would support this amendment forming part of the expressed text of the Bill that we seek an emphasis on encouraging regional and local development of museum facilities and museum display and that we, therefore, not so much interfere with the role that would be played by the statutory body to be set up, as give a certain direction as elected representatives, that we see a particular need and want this expressly recognised.

Far from resenting or being surprised at any such expressed provision, the members of the National Heritage Council should take very seriously this provision as being one which expresses the intention of elected representatives. Although we are setting up or, proposing to set up a statutory body and asking that statutory body to perform a number of functions, we are doing it as part of the legislative policy-making. We are responsible for the policy-making, and this amendment does incorporate an aspect of policy-making which I would like to see expressly contained in the Bill.

I am not entirely clear on the nature of the consultation which would take place under subsection (b) of the proposed amendment that any State authority or local authority which proposes to establish a local, county council or regional museum shall consult the Council in respect of its plans for such a museum. One would hope that, once the council had both taken over the functions to which I have already referred under section 2 (a) and then had a direction under paragraph (a) to have regard in particular to the provision of museum and display facilities outside geographical area of County Dublin, there would be a natural desire both to exchange views and to consult. I am not quite sure whether it is necessary to make it a mandatory consultation process so that somehow a local body or a local authority is in statutory default by not consulting. I would hope that we could encourage the consulting, but that expressed provision is part of a legislative policy and is not in any way either usurping or in some way interfering with what will be the proper functions of the heritage council when established. It is a proper recognition of what our role is in relation to the heritage council, and I certainly would support it. Indeed, I know, on the ground in the various parts of the country, of local bodies who would very much welcome this heritage council. It would give some direction to the transfer functions, rather than just merely transfer them as a institutional, or a bureaucratic step, as I described it earlier.

I find paragraph (a) rather patronising in its tone. It states:

The Council shall have regard particularly in respect of the provision of museum and display facilities and those amenities which it considers appropriate to its functions under this Act, for the needs of regions and areas of the country outside the geographical area of the County of Dublin;

Do people still think that there is nothing anywhere except within the confines of Dublin, either city or county? There are many excellent museums in various parts of the country. There are excellent museums within a short distance from my own home and within a short distance from the home of the Minister. Every facility and encouragement should be given for more of these local museums. Surely members of the council will know of the activities of the people who organise and provide these local museums. They can give them every possible encouragement, but the incentive must come locally: local people are very interested in their own heritage and they build up these museums bit by bit. In various parts of the country these museums are wonderful tourist attractions. They could be encouraged, but do not let anybody think that Dublin has or should have a monopoly of all these things.

Paragraph (b) is most commendable for any local authority or anybody else. Any group of interested people would know very well indeed to consult with the council because they can always do with a bit of good advice and that would be the biggest function of the council. We presume that there will be people of scholarship and learning and understanding and that they will be in a position to advise people about how best to do these things.

I can say to Senator Robinson that since she disappeared relationships are improving. I could say at the outset to Senator O'Connell that I welcome the amendment in principle. I am not any good at the wording particularly in view of some of the points raised by Senator Robinson. The spirit behind this amendment is the true spirit of the council we are establishing. I come from a rural part, Kilmurry, a small country village where there is the Terence McSweeney Museum provided entirely by local effort and indeed a great tribute to the local community. The spirit in this amendment is the type of spirit that should be contained in the Bill that we have before us, and I am prepared to welcome and accept the amendment in principle but I am not happy with the wording as it is. I would be prepared to show it to the parliamentary draftsman for inclusion by way of amendment on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following new subsection:

"( ) (a) The Council shall, within twelve months of its establishment:

(i) consider what further specific functions not mentioned in this Act, particularly with regard to the National Library, National Gallery, the Public Record Office, State and local archives, the Ordnance Survey, National Parks and Monuments Section of the Office of Public Works, heritage gardens and also all inland navigable waterways not mentioned in this Act, should properly be within its responsibility as defined or implied in subsection (1) of this section; and

(ii) report the results of its findings to the Minister.

(b) The Minister shall lay such report before each House of the Oireachtas forthwith."

In the discussion on the Bill pity was expressed strongly by a number of people that the Bill seemed to limit itself to particular aspects and to exclude others. In particular, if we look at section 4 (2) (a) we see references to the National Museum of Science and Art. The point was made, for example, that here we would be separating the National Museum from the National Library. Many people expressed the opinion that the National Library properly should be under the Heritage Council.

We are back to the point when we have to say, "Right, maybe we would like to encompass the whole wide stretch of the national heritage, maybe we would like the council to take charge of everything but we must be realistic, we must stick to certain specific things, we must take on as much as we can chew and no more".

On Second Stage the concept of a national archive was mooted, that is to say, the concept that there is, as it were, a national archive in the sense of all those things which we believe should be preserved and kept and conserved. We made the point that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish, to classify or to put into distinct categories, what should be in that building we call the National Museum and that institution we call the National Library, or indeed the National Gallery. If we look at a particular painting, for example, by what criteria are we going to decide absolutely definitely that which should be in one rather than the other two of those institutions?

For example, a painting may very well come under the scope and responsibility of all three institutions. What is proposed in the Bill is that the National Museum should, for example, be separated from the National Library and the National Gallery. It was no coincidence that those three institutions and, of course, the Natural History Museum which is part of the National Museum, are placed within close physical proximity to each other. There would be those who would suggest that the building which connects or might appear from an architectural structural point of view to connect those four institutions is itself possibly part of the national heritage or some kind of museum. I would hope that the inmates and the occupants and those people who are preserved within this institution and will, I hope, be preserved within this institution, would reject such a supposition that it is in fact a museum.

However, a possible amendment would be to suggest that the Bill as it stands should include these various institutions that we have named here, the National Library, the National Gallery, the Public Record Office, State and local archives, the Ordnance Survey, the National Parks and Monuments Section of the Office of Public Works, heritage gardens and all inland navigable waterways — that one option for us would be to move an amendment that all these should right now be included in the scope of the Bill. But, having deference to the Minister's capacity for vast quantities of work and his willingness to take on all sorts of responsibilities, we nevertheless felt that this was a little bit too much to ask at this stage, and the purpose of this amendment is to put a date on a proposal from the council with regard to these institutions and those aspects of the national heritage with which they are concerned. It would be quite reasonable for the Minister to give us either a general assurance or an assurance within a definite time to say that a report would be made back to the Seanad and the Dáil.

We want to ensure that this does not go into the bureaucratic machine and find its way through various corridors, from one tray to another, and maybe not eventuate for a substantial length of time. We want a date on this, we want something specific here.

At this point I should like to refer to our navigable waterways. It is not immediately clear to me precisely which waterways are included in the specific functions of the Council and which are not. There is a strong argument for saying that all navigable inland waterways should be included and that there should be one body, whether it is the National Heritage Council or not, which should have responsibility for them. Paragraph (b) of this amendment proposes that the Minister, having received the report from the National Heritage Council, who would have the job of deciding whether these things properly came within their responsibilities, would then lay such a report before each House of the Oireachtas forthwith enabling us then to consider, without necessarily going into the business of amending legislation or such a report, to debate it, and propose to whatever Government that happened to be in power whether legislation might be appropriate, or indeed whether Private Members' legislation might be appropriate.

Strange as it may seem, I find myself in tune with much of what Senator O'Connell has said; particularly with his references to the inland navigable waterways. I know it is the wish of the Inland Waterways Association and of An Taisce too that the authority of the heritage council be extended to the Grand Canal and the Royal Canal and various other waterways not specified as the main tributaries of the Shannon within the terms of the Bill.

I noted when the Minister spoke on Second Stage he said it was his intention at that time thus to extend the powers of the council to the inland and navigable waterways. I ask the Minister if he would give us a firm assurance that he would see his way sometime in the future to extend to the council powers in relation to all inland navigable waterways. It makes sense to me coming as I do from water country served by the Shannon and touching on these inland waterways. I know their immense importance and the part they play in our heritage. Bearing in mind, historically speaking, the part that water has played in Irish life — the first people came to our shores and years ago we moved about on waterways — I would like to see the powers of this council extended to the inland navigable waters. I am buoyed up by the Minister's very firm assurance on Second Stage that he will so do. I find myself in general agreement with Senator O'Connell.

To make this broad consensus even broader, I would like to support the suggestion specifically to include the inland navigable waters in the functions of the council. Like Senator O'Connell I am not clear on precisely which waterways are covered. It would help to have that clarified in the record. There is considerable concern by bodies such as An Taisce and others that this is not expressly among the council's functions and it might be that we could do this by an amendment on Report Stage, take it out of this context and put it in, since we are agreed on it, without needing 12 months for the council to consider and report on it. I am sure Senator O'Connell would be prepared to consider an amendment to his amendment. It is considered by a very broad sector and by those of us who value the importance of the inland and navigable waterways that from the beginning this should be an express function of the heritage council because it fits in with the other functions. It should be covered by the rather broad terms of paragraph (f) in conjunction with another paragraph of the subsection.

On the general thrust of the amendment I find myself in sympathy with what Senator O'Connell is seeking to ensure. It is a less desirable procedure that this Bill would transfer express functions to the National Heritage Council and then leave it to the Minister when the time came, which ever Minister it may be who under section 5 would have to consult the council. He would be the mover of any further consideration or transfer of functions.

Therefore, if he did not move on it, it would not get done, and even if he were to decide to move on it, the Minister might have a different perspective of it than the heritage council. It would seem to be more desirable that the moving initiative would come from the heritage council, that they would be required to prepare a report. They would then be in a position to know how they were handling the existing functions and how relevant and important it would be to extend those functions. The Minister then, as is more appropriate in this context, would respond by considering the report and the two Houses would respond because the report would be laid before both Houses. We would have a better structure for considering the possible extension of the powers of the council. It is really an institutional amendment with which I would be in sympathy. I would like the Minister to consider it seriously because it is a better formulation than the present possibility of conferring additional functions as envisaged in section 5.

Senator Robinson referred to section 5 which provides that the initiative will rest with the Minister. The amendment is specific. I would have a very open mind on how the council should develop and see themselves developing. I would not like to tie their hands too tightly. There was a reference to the national archives. Legislation is being prepared on a National Archives Bill.

I am not very happy with the specifics of the Senator's amendment. I believe that the additional functions which can be conferred under section 5 are fairly broad. The difficulty is, as Senator Robinson says, if the Minister does not move there is no way the council under section 5 can take any initiative. I will not make any commitment. Between now and Report Stage I will look at it to see whether there is a second possibility or a second initiative with certain restrictions.

In relation to the inland waterways in which Senators O'Rourke and Robinson have a very deep interest, I was asked for an exact definition of what is covered in paragraph (f). Basically what is covered there are all the navigable waterways under the control of the Board of Works, which as is stated in the subsection are:

the part of the River Shannon upstream of Thomond Bridge, Limerick and the tributaries thereof entering the River Shannon upstream of the said Thomond Bridge,

They are known as the waterways of the Shannon Navigation. They are the navigable waterways under the control of the Board of Works upstream to Thomond Bridge and tributaries.

The transfer of the Royal and Grand Canals is a separate issue, the reason being that I am very anxious to see those two canals transferred to the Heritage Council at the earliest opportunity. I believe there is a wealth of heritage there. There is a wealth of character attached to the whole network of those canals. The stories and legends told have grown around the traffic on those canals where you had a great connection between old Dublin and rural Ireland. It was a link that was nurtured week by week by the boatmen who came in both directions, and this must be preserved.

Unfortunately, there is a big legal difficulty, and legislation is being drafted by the Minister for Transport. It is extremely detailed and tangled. I would hope that some progress has been made since the Second Stage here, but quite a lot remains to be done. But it would be my intention to push very hard at the earliest opportunity when the necessary legislation is cleared to transfer these waterways to the control of the Heritage Council. I am not prepared to make a commitment at this stage on the conferring of additional functions, but I am prepared to look at the possibility of a second type of initiative.

I welcome the Minister's commitment that at the earliest possible opportunity, when the legal tangles, as he called them, will have been ironed out, the transfer will take place. I would like to bring to his attention that there are other navigable waters such as the cross-Border Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal and the Corrib navigation which are not covered initially by this Bill. I meant to say it when I got up the first time and it slipped my mind, but these waters are not mentioned specifically, as were the Royal and Grand Canals, in the terms of the Bill and I would like again to put it on the record of the House that the Minister might see fit to recommend to the National Heritage Council, particularly because we share a common heritage north and south, that we do not stop when we come to Ulster but say that Ireland's heritage embraces the thirty-two counties. The stretch of canal linking North and South should be included in the navigable waters to be brought to the attention of the National Heritage Council.

I thank the Minister's — is it a commitment or a non-commitment? — undertaking to examine this. I would like to thank Senator O'Rourke for her remarks about our being in tune on this matter. It is one of my fondest childhood memories by the shores of Lough Derg on the Shannon to have watched those vessels passing up and down, Senator O'Rourke of course would be too young to remember.

We could go again.

In particular I remember one vessel called the "St. James" that used to move along that waterway, but I do not think this is the appropriate place or time to get involved in a sentimental discussion except to say that apart from anything else the inland waters, apart from their historical interest, are of very important tourism interest and that there are commercial aspects to them as well.

In this context I would like to mention briefly the question of heritage gardens. Here again we are talking about a commercial aspect and a tourism aspect, but we are also talking of an aspect of human activity which is very much in contrast and very much a positive statement of human endeavour at a time and in an age in which so much around us is destruction, so much around us is temporary, so much around us is concerned with what is passing, and we are constantly reminded of the ephemeral, of the lack of permanence. There is nothing that so much emphasises the permanence and the continuity of human activity as a heritage garden which has been maintained over generations and which it should be our function to try to help to be maintained in the future. I accept the Minister's non-commitment and I look forward to what he will say on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

I would like to discuss the section itself at this stage. First of all I would welcome some indication from the Minister of the precise scope and content he would place on the important words used in section 4 (1) in relation to the exercise of the functions by the council. It would be useful to have on the record some indication of the capacity and scope which the Minister envisages the council would have to identify, preserve, protect, enhance and develop the various buildings, parks, waterways and museums that will be placed in their charge by subsection (2).

These words must have been chosen advisedly and I think it would be helpful to know the areas of preservation and enhancing. The reason I ask this is that we are taking these powers from general Departments of State or from the Commissioners of Public Works and we are transferring them to this new body. We would want to be very sure that the National Heritage Council will have the manpower and the capacity and technical resources and money and all the other needs in order to exercise their functions. I would welcome some clarification of that. I would also welcome specific indication from the Minister of how he proposes the powers under section 5 will be exercised.

In a sense, section 4 is an enabling section: it enables certain functions to be transferred to the National Heritage Council, but subsection (5) refers to the power of the Minister. Having discussed at length the transfer of functions, we could find they were not being transferred. Subsection (5) provides that the whole of section 4 shall come into operation on a day or days by order made by the Minister under the section. This may be fixed, therefore, either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision, and then different dates can be fixed for different purposes.

Could the Minister indicate if there are to be problems or delays in relation to one or other of the sub-headings as set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of the subsection, with the possible amendments we may have on Report Stage to meet some of the proposals put forward by Senator O'Connell? Does he envisage that fairly coincidental with the passing of the Bill it will be possible immediately to transfer functions, and might there be a delay in relation to other functions? In other words I would welcome a general explanation of that aspect of the section.

I might say to the Senator that the words really mean, and I want them to mean, specifically what is outlined in section 4. Basically here we are talking about a transfer of functions but with this distinct difference — at least this is what I envisage here — the higher profile of a national heritage council to fulfil the functions. First of all the section specifies the identification, preservation, protection, enhancing and developing for the benefit of the public and, of course, to foster public interest and pride in, and so on.

I compliment our various agencies, whether it be the Office of Public Works, the Department of Forestry or whoever, all of whom have done tremendous work in various parts of the country. There are our forest parks sometimes viewed by accident perhaps in the area of a by-election. They have not the public profile they should have. There is the preservation of many old historical links with our cherished past, on which the Commissioners of Public Works have done tremendous work. They need to be given a higher profile particularly the conveying of an appreciation of what our heritage really is to our young and how it can be best exposed. That would be my concept of how the National Heritage Council should perform. I have laid emphasis many times in the debate on it not being a small body. It will be one of our bigger non-commercial State bodies. It will have in excess of 1,000 people. The quality, expertise and competence of its council and commitment are extremely important. It is extremely important that that council have a high degree of commitment to the various functions outlined here.

With the passage of the Bill I would envisage the immediate establishment of the council. Within a period of four to six weeks I would then envisage the council taking over the functions listed in paragraphs (a) to (f). The appointed day can be set very quickly. I hope that gives Senators some idea of where I see the commitment with regard to the functions as specified.

Money was mentioned. Senator Robinson did mention ministerial assurances. I am sure where money is concerned there have been more ministerial assurances given and commitments made down throughout decades by various Ministers and various Governments. Investment in our heritage is of extreme importance and in all the wonderful examples of our heritage that exist. The establishment of a council will give it the higher profile necessary for any Government to ensure — I will not say adequate fundings, because it would be a bottomless tank if one were to say that — substantial fundings being made available each year for the various functions assigned.

With regard to subsection (5) and the additional functions there are, of course, some specifics. One of my dearest wishes would be to see the canals linked in. I am unable to answer the point raised by Senator O'Rourke earlier. Obviously the cross-Border one would require legislation. Certainly I will investigate the position at present. That is an area that we must move to fairly quickly. There are, of course others as were outlined here on Second Stage and today by Senator O'Connell and others. The real importance is that we establish this council, that it can be seen to be competent, having the necessary expertise and the functions allocated to it carrying a proper high profile. On ministerial commitment I have undertaken to review whether or not any other initiatives can be taken between now and Report Stage. All of those combined mean that during our time we are initiating a council whose future would be extremely important to all the desirable functions outlined in the section. Therefore I hope Senators will understand my commitment with regard to it.

I thank the Minister for his contribution. Briefly I should say that we are not really happy, particularly with subsection (1), for reasons already given. We do not think that it deals adequately with the functions prescribed, or does not cover adequately the general responsibility that seem to us to be contained in the Long Title of the Bill. We would want to have a look at the whole section again on Report Stage to ascertain exactly how we feel about it then.

To respond to the clarification given by the Minister to my question might I just be clear: is it correct that the Minister is saying that the council would be established and the transfer of functions from paragraphs (a) to (f) and presumably under subsection (3) would be achieved within a time scale of four to six weeks?

I should clarify that. I will be advised by the council. That may be overloading the council. If it can be achieved in that short time I would be quite happy. Certainly I should like to see it done in the shortest time possible. Obviously the council themselves would have to have a say on when and on what appointed dates some of these functions would be taken over by them.

I certainly appreciate, if the Minister is talking about a matter of four to six weeks, that he is not envisaging the kind of delay we sometimes see in other legislation of this kind when even years can pass and when in fact functions are not transferred. I want to try to get some clarity on that. The Minister appears to be thinking in terms of weeks. Is there any order of priorities: if it is necessary to transfer one set of functions before another, or does the Minister have an order of priorities on that?

I would be guided by the council on that. There is not really any legal problem on transfer. The only problems envisaged may be practical ones.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

I am not absolutely happy with the section as it stands in that again one of the principles that we followed in looking at the Bill was to try to go for open or participatory government. I am not absolutely clear as to whether an order made under this section, as opposed to other sections, will have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, whether such an order becomes public property. There is reference to this in section 30. I would like clarification on that. I would like to reserve our position overall on that section.

Like Senator O'Connell, for reasons that include the reasons he has expressed, I would not be happy with the way in which section 5 is framed although one can see a logical sequence between sections 4 and 5. Perhaps a good deal of our disquiet and reservations about section 5 stem from the basic criticisms of section 4, that the responsibilities of the council in the area of national heritage are confined to the transfer of specific jurisdiction as set out in section 4. The point has been made, emphasised, repeated and remains one of the most fundamental criticisms of the section, and inevitably of the Bill itself, that this is too narrow in its functional approach to what is our national heritage. Section 5 is a logical extension of that functional approach but open to the same criticisms.

If we leave section 5 as it stands then we leave it to the Minister, as we said earlier, to be the moving party. The Minister has said that he would consider that. I would suggest to the Minister that if he is considering the amendment proposed by Senator O'Connell to section 4 he might more appropriately consider it as a possible amendment to section 5. The intent of the amendment of Senator O'Connell to section 4 might improve at least the provision of section 5 — we can consider this on Report Stage — that it would be the council which would have a certain role in initiating, by being able to report on the possibility of a function being transferred to it.

That still leaves us with the major problem, which is this functional approach to our national heritage. I would prefer certainly — if that is the rock bottom choice that we have — that the council itself can be a moving party, can take an initiative and that it is not just left to the Minister. But as section 5 is framed at present it seems to me to give the Minister a considerable legislative policy that I do not like to see done by way of delegated legislation. I do not like to see — and this is not a personal remark about this Minister and and I do not think he would take it as such — but I do not like to see us——

I do not take——

There is no cross-fire, no personal content at all in my remarks. I am looking rather to the medium and longer-term future of this proposal if it does go through. In fact we would be conferring on the Minister, by way of delegated legislation, considerable legislative policy as to what functions would become part of our heritage for the purposes of the heritage council. That is both a very considerable power and is in the area of legislative policy-making on which both Houses should have a view. It is more appropriate either that we extend in section 4 (1) the scope of the role of the heritage council beyond this functional approach — in other words, generally to our national heritage — or, if we are going to adopt this functional approach, that the two Houses of the Oireachtas have a role to play in the legislative policy. I think they could be given that role if the heritage council itself was given a power to take an initiative, to report and, if that report was submitted to both Houses, then there could be participation at least in this policy decision-making as to what functions and therefore what areas of our national heritage would be more directly brought under the heritage council. Section 5, as it stands, logically follows from section 4 and therefore suffers from and aggravates the basic defect and criticism that we would have of section 4.

I think what I said was that my approach would not be so much to examine Senator O'Connell's amendment in relation to section 4 but to examine the point made by Senator Robinson with regard to additional functions. In fact, one could say that Senator O'Connell's amendment constituted additional functions and could apply also, in a certain sense, to section 5 and to ascertain whether or not it was possible to have a second initiative. I will undertake to look at that between now and Report Stage, without commitment, of course.

On the functions, obviously it is a functional exercise at this point at least; we have to allocate functions to the council. The point made by Senator Robinson, I think I made myself in Opposition on occasions. But I do think here we have the safeguard that it has to come before Dáil Éireann, by order, so that control of the legislature is there over the Minister regarding some of those additional functions.

Obviously I too appreciate the importance here of section 5. I have undertaken, without commitment, to look at that again between now and Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.

Amendments Nos. 11, 40 and 42 are related and should be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 11:

In subsection (3) (b), page 6, line 3, to delete "£300" and substitute "£600".

I want to raise a point on subsection (1) with regard to——

Acting Chairman

The Senator is dealing with——

The amendments first and then the general section afterwards. Amendment No. 11 and also amendments Nos. 40 and 42, refer to the level of fines proposed at various points in the Bill. The opinion expressed here is that the figures mentioned are inadequate. We are not talking about a mandatory fine of £300 in the case of subsection (3), we are talking about a fine not exceeding £300. In this context, whereas I do not want to go into the legal possibilities that are open or not open, it does seem to those experts who have offered advice to us on this that such a maximum figure is totally inadequate in the light both of the kind of unsatisfactory behaviour meriting such a fine that could take place and also in relation to the fact that we are living more or less in an endemic state of inflation, and that inflation would render such a fine very rapidly out of date. Consequently we have put forward amendments to try to push up the maximum figures to be applicable.

I stress again that it is not a question of laying down a mandatory figure of £300 in this case. In the case of section 12 we are talking in terms of mandatory figures of £500, or under my amendments, £1,000 or £600. We are talking of raising the upper limit so that the courts would have the opportunity of imposing a punishment that matched the crime more closely. Indeed we wondered if, in the circumstances, these figures might have been too small.

I should like to support Senator O'Connell in everything he has said. I think the fines are much too low. As this is a very important Bill I should like to have it noted that I am in total support of the increased fines he suggests.

I, too, support the intent of this amendment. It may be appropriate — I am sure the Minister will make this point — that the size of the penalty should stay within range of a summary offence. In present inflation terms the sum is adjudged to be a maximum of £500. If Senator O'Connell would accept a minor adjustment to his amendment and substitute £500 for £600 he would still be within the range of a summary penalty. I agree that we should reflect on what is, after all, going to be a maximum fine. But we have had experience elsewhere, in relation to protection of our environment, to protection against pollution, of ludicrously low fines and of frustrated district justices saying that they have not got the proper power. Therefore we should go to the limit of the summary jurisdiction and have that as the appropriate level. Then if it is a very minor infringement, the district justice can quite properly impose a much lower fine.

I am an extremely accommodating Minister. I think I can accommodate the principle of Senator O'Connell's amendment, supported by my colleague, Senator Cassidy, with the proviso that Senator Robinson rightly enters. The best approach might be — because of the range that has been mentioned by Senator Robinson and indeed also because of relativities — rather than my specifying what the figure should be that for Report Stage I will come back to the House with a revised set of figures to meet the intention of the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 12:
In subsection (5), page 6, line 22, to delete "description" and substitute "title".

This is purely a technical amendment necessary because column 3 of Part II of the Second Schedule gives the title and not the description of transferred properties. Thus the present phrasing is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. Hence the deletion of the word "description" and the substitution of the word "title".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

I think it would be helpful if the Minister would clarify a number of aspects. First, subsection (3) (a) says:

The Council may, with the consent of the Minister, by regulations make such provision as it thinks necessary or expedient for preserving the character of national parks and different provisions may be made in relation to different national parks.

Indeed it was a breach of these regulations at which we were looking that would possibly call down the fine. I would need clarification as to whether the word "may" is to be construed as "shall", whether it is intended that the council shall in fact make the regulations. It would seem to be an instance where "may" means "shall" in the sense that the regulations would be necessary. I have some difficulty in understanding the relationship between that power to be exercised under subsection (3) (a) which says:

The Council may, with the consent of the Minister, by regulations make such provision as it thinks necessary or

then there is the power to make by-laws under section 12 (1) which says:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Council may, for the purposes of its functions under this Act, with the approval of the Minister, make by-laws in relation to any property under its care and management.

What is the difference between the regulatons and by-laws in the powers under those two subsections? If I might have that point clarified I will come back on others.

I think the difference is this — regulations cover the overall management of the park. For example, by-laws cover the day-to-day operations. I would like to go into this more deeply between now and Report Stage if that satisfies the Senators.

I think it will be helpful — as we are dealing here with an offence for breach of it — to know what we are creating an offence about. Similarly, I have some difficulty in understanding, under subsection (4), to what power we are being asked to give the Minister. The subsection says "The Minister may, on the recommendation of the Council, by order amend Part 1 of the Second Schedule to this Act..." by adding and subtracting. Is it because these parks may be passed out of the functional control and authority of the National Council or what is the purpose of what is in fact a rather unusual power? It may be under subsection (4) that the Minister cannot exercise the power unless recommended by the council. Therefore the council here would seem to have a specific initiative that they can make a recommendation and then the Minister may make the order. It is the adding and subtracting to the various columns in the schedule that I have not quite understood. Perhaps the Minister could explain it.

I will try to help the Senator, if I may. The Minister is empowered here, on the recommendation of the council, by order to amend Part 1 of the Second Schedule by adding a property, thus designating it as a national park; deleting a property, thus rescinding its designation as a national park and adding additional property to an existing description, thus including additional areas in an existing national park; deleting property from an existing description, thus deleting an area from an existing national park. As a result of that this subsection facilitates an effective review of national park policy by the Minister and by the council. It gives the necessary flexibility to deal with situations that might arise as a result of the council's examination. That is basically what we are talking about there.

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Certainly, on reading it that seemed to be what was proposed but that raises a further problem. It is giving a very considerable and important power in relation to designating or lifting the description of a national park. I would be concerned that the Houses of the Oireachtas would have some role to play in relation to that.

Since there is power under section 30 for an order under section 5 to be laid in draft before both Houses, and since this will involve important decisions in relation to what was or was not a national park, I wonder whether that also will be a matter that might be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The initiative here appears to lie solely with the national council. It is on their recommendation that the Minister may or may not make the order. However since this is related to the functions of the council and since we have adopted a functional approach this will reflect on the functions of the council and it is a matter on which it might be more appropriate to have draft orders which could be considered by both Houses. I would like the Minister to comment on that.

I would be happy enough to examine that. I take the point made by the Senator. It is a heavy decision on occasions whether to designate or re-designate, to rescind or not or, indeed, to introduce other areas. It may well be because of its nature that the matter may be controversial. I will look at that position between now and Report Stage to see if it is advisable or desirable to give the Houses of the Oireachtas a say in it.

I should like to thank the Minister.

The point I should like to raise is in regard to the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park which, for the benefit of Members who may not be aware, is sighted in Heaven's reflex, in other words in the areas surrounding Killarney. There is considerable disquiet in Killarney over the introduction of this Bill among those who are concerned on the one hand with Muckross House and also in regard to certain arrangements which have been made between some private people and the urban district council in regard to the area and part of the area that is to be included in this national park. Basically they want to know the status and continuity of the arrangements that may be made between the Commissioners of Public Works and the trustees of Muckross House, and if such an agreement will be binding on the National Heritage Council. Those people are concerned about the relationship of Muckross House within the national park and the status it will have.

Arrangements, I understand, have been made with regard to what is known as the McShane Estate. This also involves Killarney Urban District Council but also would have a relationship with the national park. What appear to be satisfactory arrangements have been made, particularly with regard to the current status of this property in the lifetime of its present owner and what is to happen to it subsequently. An agreement has been reached and the people in Killarney are worried as to what will happen when the National Heritage Council take over.

It occurred to me at certain stages when I was studying the Bill that possibly I should move an amendment to suggest that within the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park, or adjacent to it, consequently within the scope of this section — the National Heritage Council, when established, by statute should be established within the environment of the town of Killarney and within sight of the Lakes of Killarney which, as the Minister is aware — he possibly has other candidates from his own electoral area — is possibly the most beautiful part of a beautiful country. Indeed, it qualifies as the most beautiful area in the world. It is, of course, coincidental that my family happen to come from that area, I mention that merely in passing. There is a serious question with regard to the relationship between Muckross House and other properties with the proposed national park. I would be obliged if the Minister will now, or at some stage during the course of our discussions, clarify that and put the people of Killarney at ease.

I can reassure the Senator on some of the points he made. I should tell the House that the original park was known as the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park. Significantly, in 1983 we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the acceptance of the park from its American donors. Further, lands, including the McShane lands referred to by Senator O'Connell, have since been acquired.

A Corkman can always agree with a Kerryman that it is an area of tremendous beauty which is listed among the parks in the United Nations list. It is a wonderful amenity and a place of great beauty. I want to reassure the people of Killarney who have any worries in this respect. Section 25 covers the rights or liabilities held previously, for example by the Minister for Finance. The section states:

(b) the said liabilities shall, as on and from that date, be liabilities of the council.

The Senator can be reassured that the queries he has raised — he can convey this to the people of Killarney — are covered in that section.

As the Minister is dealing with the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park will be explain why it is excluded from the power to make by-laws under section 12(4)?

It is already contained in the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Act, 1932. That Act is transferred for the purpose of the council.

Are the powers under that Act transferred?

They would be equivalent to the powers to make a by-law?

That is the explanation for it.

That is the Act that is mentioned in Page 2, the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Act, 1932?

That is correct.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 23 are related and should be discussed together.

Before Senator O'Connell commences I should like to say that I have some amendments to this section. The Senator is welcome to move his amendments if he wishes but perhaps our objectives are similar. Has the Senator gone through my amendments? The amendments he has tabled cover the same sort of problem and, perhaps, his are superfluous. My amendment is No. 16.

In the time available I have considered amendment No. 16 and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in relation to it. I am not totally happy that it meets my case. Indeed, overall I am not happy with section 7. I might even go further and say that I am acutely unhappy with it and, possibly, in our discussion the Minister will have an opportunity to lay my fears at rest.

Acting Chairman

Is the Senator moving amendment No. 13?

I move amendment No. 13:

In subsection (1), page 6, line 25, after "heritage building" to insert "or artefact, landscape feature or group of buildings".

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 13 and 23 should be discussed together, and that is all that is before the House.

Amendment No. 13 is to take the phrase "heritage building" and add to it the words, "or artefact, landscape feature or group of buildings". The point that we are making is that "heritage building", though it is clearly at the centre of the Bill as proposed and is at the centre of the functions which the Minister proposes for the council and within the range of functions we might temporarily, and reluctantly, be willing to accept, it is not sufficently comprehensive to cover what we might want to have included under the section. We could define "heritage building" quite easily and say that it is a specific building associated with age or history. This does not adequately cover the type of items that may arise, for example, a bridge. It could be argued that a bridge as such is not a heritage building, it is not the commonsense definition of a heritage building. Neither would a road be covered by the commonsense definition. We have proposed the word "artefact", something that has been made or constructed by human agency.

With regard to "a landscape feature", a building is something fairly specific but it might well be that we would find ourselves, for example, particularly in the archaeological area or in terms of the pre-historic archaeological area or in an archaeological time more adjacent to our own, looking at a district or an arrangement of part of a landscape which had been produced by human agency.

We might say of that that it was something that required preservation or conservation as an entity. To take an individual building or item out of this and separate it would not be enough. We would want to look at the entity as a whole. For example, we might well consider that a village, farm or forest that would not come under "artefact". A forest may be a very ancient one. Some arrangement or feature of a landscape may be very much part of our national heritage and it should be the function of the National Heritage Council to take charge of and responsibility for it.

If, for example, we were to consider buildings within the radius of a couple of hundred yards of this House we might say that we would classify them individually. On the other hand, for the purposes of the National Heritage Council we may want to take them as a group of buildings because they had a cohesion or homogeneity of some kind, some set of associations, that bound them together. We are not happy with the definition of a "heritage building" in the section. We believe it should be broadened. The purpose of the amendment is to give the National Heritage Council broader scope, even within the specific functions to which the Minister would like, in the short-term, to limit it.

Although I am in sympathy with the values which are at the back of Senator O'Connell's mind in tabling this amendment and, indeed, specifically I see no objection to extending the concept of a heritage building — it is proper to do so and include that extension in the definition of it — I believe a lot of what he hopes to achieve cannot be achieved as section 7 is drafted because it has a very narrow meaning of heritage building. It is heritage building in State ownership. Therefore, we may need a more substantial change before the National Heritage Council can fulfil what I believe is a very important role of such a body, a broader listing of historic buildings. Although there is not a specific amendment to this effect down, this is something that warrants very real consideration for some of the reasons given by Senator O'Connell. The section is quite narrow in its scope and relates to the historic State buildings, meaning the heritage buildings however defined. We can improve that definition in the way Senator O'Connell is proposing. It shows the weakness of this functional approach to the Bill that the council do not appear to have any role other than this very limited one — important as it is — in relation to heritage buildings in the full ownership of the State.

Like Senator O'Connell, I regard it as a very important and a very substantial improvement on the role and power of the council if we can broaden the section and give it a power to list and identify and, therefore, to give recognition to buildings as historic buildings. We do have informal listings. They have, it is fair to say, a more comprehensive and better system of listing buildings that could be regarded as historic buildings in Northern Ireland. There has been some listing done here but not on anything like the scale we would like to see. This would seem to be a function that could very valuably be performed by the heritage council. Regrettably, a good deal of the objective Senator O'Connell may wish to achieve cannot be under the section as at present framed. Nevertheless on the point he makes, the narrow point on the heritage building as such, his amendment still stands because it may well be that in State ownership there is something which would not come under the narrower present definition of heritage buildings in the section, if it does not include, as he proposes, the addition for artefact, landscape feature or group of buildings. The range would be narrower because it would be in full State ownership but his argument for extending the definition stands and I would support him in that.

Senator Robinson has come to my assistance in some of the points I would have made. I believe this is a major step forward with regard to buildings in State ownership. Senators are well aware that the rights of property create problems for buildings in private ownership. It is clear to me that the Senator was talking about those in private ownership but this section covers those buildings in State ownership. I recommend that Senator O'Connell withdraw his amendments. Amendment No. 16 more than adequately covers the point I was making in relation to State buildings. It states:

(II) any building or other structure or any part thereof, adjoining a heritage building and vested in the authority, or

(ii) to alter fundamentally the character of any other land, or any part thereof, adjoining a heritage building and vested in the authority,

Basically one cannot demolish, alter or interfere with any of that type of building or land without the council first being notified and authority being given. Amendment No. 16 more than adequately covers the points made on the amendments we have been discussing.

Certainly there is some improvement in amendment No. 16 but it only refers to subsection (2). It does not refer to the use of the words "heritage building" in subsection (1) in that context or the definition in subsection (3). When we are talking about heritage State buildings and giving the council a role in relation to them we need, for the purposes of the entire section, to define what we mean by "heritage State buildings". Senator O'Connell has proposed a reasonable extension of what is meant by a heritage building in this context. The council might be very narrowed in what it can do under subsection (1) because the Minister's amendment No. 16 does not extend to that. That could pose problems in relation to the maintenance, restoration, repair, upkeep or improvement in making any submissions in relation to that by the council to the State.

Any definition of a use of a State building — here in the context of buildings owned by the State — should clearly define for the whole section, not just a subsection of it, the use of the term. The Minister's amendment does not meet that point. It does not refer to the use of the word in subsections (1) or (3) in the definition section. Therefore, it is important. The council will come to a decision on whether it will consult with and advise the State authority in relation to the maintenance, preservation, restoration, repair, upkeep and improvement of the building as it must be defined for the purposes of section 1. I would prefer the broader definition put forward by Senator O'Connell. Similarly, in relation to the words "heritage building" in subsection (3) I would like the broader definition. The council can decide whether, because of its intrinsic value as outlined, it should be listed for preservation.

It is certainly possible that it would be "an artefact" rather than a State building in the way in which it is defined in subsection (3) or it could be a "landscape feature" or a "group of buildings". We need a broader definition for the purposes of the section and the Minister's amendment does not meet that. We are going to have confusion in the public mind about heritage buildings if we do not provide for a listing of important buildings which are in private ownership as heritage buildings. I do not see any property rights that would be conflicted with. Indeed, I could see that private owners under the criteria here of heritage buildings would welcome a form of listing. It could be a positive step towards some fiscal measures which would assist in the maintenance and preservation of the buildings.

Acting Chairman

That does not arise on the amendment.

There is a grave omission in the section and we can return to it when we discuss the section. The extension of "heritage building" for the purposes of State-owned heritage buildings would be an equally valid extension of the words "heritage building" if we have a broader context in which to talk about, where they are heritage buildings that may be in private ownership. The Minister's amendment does not cover the point because it does not cover the words used in subsections (1) and (3) and, inevitably, in subsection (4).

With respect, I believe this question of a list of heritage buildings not in State ownership arises under section 7 in that amendment 26 refers to it. The Minister has suggested that in the light of his amendment No. 16, we should defer the discussion to section 13. Amendment No. 13 refers to a definition, the words "heritage building" and the addition to them of various terms to come within the scope of the section. The Minister's amendment states:

(ii) To alter fundamentally the character of any other land, or any part thereof, adjoining a heritage building and vested in the authority.

This says, in effect, that the Minister is tying the definition to a heritage building as such. In other words there must be a building there for this amendment to come into effect. I am not sure if I am making myself clear. We are suggesting in amendment No. 13 that you could well have, for the scope of this section, some feature which did not contain a building at all. The Minister's amendment insists there should be a building there. We would regard that as unsatisfactory. That would not meet our requirements and Senator Robinson has made the point already.

I certainly am very unhappy with all of section 7. I have put down a number of amendments to it. I am not at all happy with either the general trend of the section or with what it leaves out, but that will arise when we deal with the section. Therefore, I would not be happy with removing the point that is contained in amendment No. 13. I would be glad to know if the Minister would be prepared to meet us some way on Report Stage.

A few different points have been made. Although we referred forward to amendment No. 16, in effect we are discussing it now. I have gone much further in that amendment and I will try to explain why to the Senators.

Before coming to that, Senator Robinson made the point that the amendment was necessary in subsection (1) and in subsection (3) and that our amendment applied to subsection (2). Our advice is that it is in subsection (2) — where action is taking place — that the amendments are needed. But because of the points raised and because of the importance I place on this, I am prepared to go back and check on the legal advice. We have gone further on subsection (2). The amendment refers to any building or other structure or any part thereof adjoining a heritage building. I appreciate that we are talking about State buildings and public buildings. But we are really going beyond, to ensure that the council are notified, in advance, of any fundamental alterations to the character of any other land or any part thereof adjoining a heritage building — which all of us would agree is extremely important because a heritage building is fine in itself, but there may be damage or demolition too adjacent to it to be wise, sensible or in the best interests of preservation. I am prepared to check in the interest of being absolutely sure of our position, because we are talking about State buildings.

The listing of heritage buildings is not related to this section and is, indeed, a major problem but in this case we are talking about fundamental alterations, not only to the heritage building itself, but in or around that building, and rightly so. The advice is that the action takes place in subsection (2). It is here that the protection is needed, rather than in subsections (1) or (3) but because of the points made we will see whether it is necessary in subsections (1) or (3).

There are other objections to amendment No. 16. Do I take it from the Minister that he is prepared to look at this whole question of definition and to come back to us with something on that? I am not sure that I made myself clear on one of the points that I was making, which is that it seems that under amendment No. 16 there must be a building as such, in the common-sense, conventional definition of the term. That, certainly, is my reading of paragraph (ii) in that amendment:

to alter fundamentally the character of any other land, or any part thereof, adjoining a heritage building...

It could be argued that if we are talking of a section of land upon which there was not a heritage building, or of a forest, or something of that nature, that case would not be covered by this amendment, if we are to take the literal meaning of it. Certainly that is my reading of it. I understand that the Minister intends to look again at that.

There are other aspects of amendment No. 16 and, indeed, of the original Bill to which we have referred in my amendments. I would like to come back to that later.

Since the Minister has indicated that he would be prepared to look at the definition here, perhaps it would be worth making a few further observations on why it appears to us necessary to extend the definition, in the manner suggested by Senator O'Connell, to include subsections (1), (3) and (4) as well as (2). The Minister said that all the action takes place in subsection (2). If action is demolition, I grant you the demolition——

Or alteration.

If action includes restoration, repair, upkeep and improvement, they are all in subsection (1).

That is advice on those, not doing it.

But advice in relation to doing it and in relation to knowing the scope of the building in relation to which you are doing it. It is very important to define what you mean by "historic building", so that you can talk about its repair and restoration. As Senator O'Connell said, if you are talking narrowly in the context of a building then you may very well not be giving the council the power to recommend and to suggest the necessity for repair and restoration of the proper, broadly defined heritage building.

That is why I suggest the action comes into effect in subsection (2) whether it be repair, demolish, alter or whatever else it may be. Subsection (1) deals with consulting with and advising the State authority.

Subsection (2) does not come into effect, as I understand it, unless the State authority is either demolishing "or (by means of alteration to the structure, decoration or finish thereof or by means of any other alteration thereto) altering fundamentally..." So if you are talking about a repair for the sake of maintenance, preservation, keeping in good order and so on, I do not think that that is what is intended in subsection (2). Subsection (2), as I understand it, is talking about either demolition or such fundamental alteration as to alter the character of it.

If the Senator reads the amendment she will see that it states:

Where a State authority proposes—

(i) to demolish, or (by means of alteration to the structure, decoration or finish thereof...

Alter fundamentally.

No, I beg the Senator's pardon —"to demolish, or (by means of alteration to the structure, decoration or finish thereof or by means of any other alteration thereto) to alter fundamentally the character of" the building.

That is the point I am making. In other words subsection (2) still——

That is a very delicate point.

No, there is a very important point at issue here and perhaps it is worth discussing it. Subsection (2) clearly seems — both in the text of the section that we have before us and in the amendment of the Minister that we keep sliding towards, but have not yet officially come to, although I am happy that we look at it — to be confined to two situations, firstly the State wants to demolish and secondly — and very importantly — where there is going to be some kind of fundamental alteration to it. That is all very specific, important, dramatic and earth-shaking in the sense of very far-reaching. Subsection (1) refers to different kinds of action in relation to a building, where the council would consult with and advise the State authorities in relation to the maintenance, preservation, restoration, repair, upkeep and improvement. That could involve very substantial activity which was neither demolition nor fundamental alteration. The activities under subsections (1) and (2) cannot be equated. They are intended to be different, and extension and improvement of the scope of the building in subsection (2) does not extend, by necessary implication, to the various activities proposed under subsection (1). Since the Minister has said that he will look at that, I emphasise this point that he may look very carefully at it as it is going to need an amendment. I would hope that on Report Stage he would accept either the precise amendment tabled by Senator O'Connell, or some slight variation of it.

As I said to the Senator, the advice to us is that the amendment covers subsection (2), but in view of what the Senator has said I certainly will check the position on subsections (1), (3) and (4). It is an important point on which to be absolutely clear.

If I may slip a little further to amendment No. 18, which is directly relevant to this——

Acting Chairman

Are you withdrawing amendment No. 13?

I withdraw it on the understanding that the Minister will look at certain aspects of it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 17, 19 and 24 are related and shall be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 14:

In subsection (1), page 6, line 25, after "State authority" to insert "or local authority".

"State authority" is far too narrow. If Senator Lanigan were here in the body of the Chamber instead of in the chair he would appreciate with regard to the city of Kilkenny very much the point that we are making here. There are vested in local authorities throughout the country very many buildings and very many artefacts, landscape features and groups of buildings, but certainly many buildings, which would come under the category of heritage buildings. We feel that to exclude these buildings from the scope of the Bill would be somewhat partial, would be to lose a reasonable opportunity here. We are proposing, therefore, that this section and, indeed, the functions that derive from the general scope of this section should cover buildings that are vested in local authorities as well as State authorities.

Obviously, the intention of the Senator in these amendments appears to be to ensure that the activities of local authorities are subject to the surveillance of the heritage council and matters relating to heritage properties owned by the authorities. As the Senator is, no doubt, aware, the local Government Planning and Development Acts require local authorities to make development plans and to provide for the proper planning and development of their areas, including the provision and the preservation of amenities. Development plans contain provisions for the preservation of buildings, including interiors of artistic, architectural and historical interest, and the preservation of caves, sites, features and other objects of archaeological, geological and historical interest.

Local authorities are precluded from undertaking any work which contravenes the development plan. The local authorities, therefore, have already a significant statutory function in the protection of heritage property, in general. Therefore, I do not believe it is appropriate to have another body to supervise the activities of local authorities in respect of properties owned by them. Many Members of this House are members of local authorities and have served on local authorities. Those elected members have served their local areas extremely well and are responsible for certain planning and development. To bring these bodies under the control of the heritage council is going to create controversy between one body and another to decide on a particular thing in their own area.

I fear that we might be putting the heritage council in an extremely difficult position by taking from the local authority the power that is theirs under the Local Government Planning and Development Acts, to draw up their development plan, and I am not sure that any of us in this House would be doing a service to our colleagues who serve on those bodies or those of us who have served in the past and, it is hoped will in the future, that we are not doing them a favour or a service or helping or promoting or improving the structures that presently exist within those authorities. I am sure that there have been mistakes made by all local authorities, but those elected members, for the most part, have fulfilled their roles and functions in a well balanced way in the interests of heritage on the one hand and taking into consideration other developments. I told Senator O'Connell at the outset, that I accepted his definition of local authority. As I said then, I have to take a different line in these more substantive amendments covering local authorities. I think it can be said of me that I have approached this Bill in a very open way, and rightly so. It is the kind of Bill that should be approached that way. I have accepted in principle quite a number of the amendments tabled here. I have also undertaken a commitment to look at some other areas, but in this particular case you are giving a role to a body to supervise bodies that, for the most part, are composed of our elected representatives and our colleagues and are performing, under the Planning and Development Acts, a functional role on the development plan. If you superimpose, or arbitrarily place a body more or less supervising what they are doing, I think you are going to have not a controversy but a conflict.

I am fascinated by the Minister's perception of the power that the council is being given under this section and that in his amendment Senator O'Connell would propose to extend to cover buildings in the ownership of local authorities. The Minister has used words such as to bring them under the control of the council, under the supervision of the council. When I look at section 7 I do not see — maybe we are looking at words in a different context — the power to control in relation to historic buildings that are in State ownership. I see a very limited consultative and advisory role, which might be properly exercised by a heritage council, but it should not threaten anyone. I could not see the State, in relation to its own buildings, coming under the control of a body such as the council, or coming under some extended supervisory power. That is not what is in the section. What the section enables the council to do, and the amendment seeks to do, is to extend it to heritage buildings in the ownership of local authorities, to consult with and advise the State authority — in this case it would be the local authority — to list it in Iris Oifigiúil and that is about the height of it. I do not think that there would be any intrusion on the sacred powers of local authorities.

What the amendment proposes is a perfectly valid extension — that when buildings are in the ownership of the central authority — I see no reason why it should not be the same in the case of local authorities — the council would exercise these advisory and consultative functions and a listing function, a listing function being one which it is very well qualified to perform.

The Minister mentioned controversy. When I saw the suggestion of extending to local authorities I thought of very sad controversies in the past, such as Wood Quay, which was in the ownership of a local authority and which certainly was demolished, in the full sense of section 2 (a) there. There are, in our towns and also rural areas around the country, important buildings which are in the ownership of a local authority and which should come under heritage State buildings, even in its narrow context where they are not in private ownership. I would be prepared to support, when the time comes to consider it, the amendment in relation to how we should try to extend the powers of the heritage council to give them some role in relation to heritage buildings in private ownership, specially in relation to listing and so on. We can distinguish between buildings in private ownership and those in the ownership of a public authority, whether it be the State authority or a local authority.

As a member of a local authority, I do not see how this could in any way encroach on any powers the local authority may have in relation to the drawing up of a development plan in its consideration of property. Any local representative who as, across the board, local representatives tend to be, is concerned about heritage or what might be regarded as heritage buildings in his or her area should welcome this consultation with and advice of the National Heritage Council. Why anybody should be afraid of this advice and consultative role I do not understand. It seems as though the Minister in responding vigorously to this amendment and stating clearly that he does not find it acceptable, has certainly, in what he has said, misread and misjudged what the role of the council is in this section. Maybe if he reflects on the very limited, but nevertheless useful, role that the council would have in relation to State-owned heritage buildings, there is no reason why they would not be extended and every reason why they should be extended to buildings in the ownership of a local authority which, we would submit, would also come under the heritage buildings in public ownership.

There is no dichotomy here at all. What the Minister is very properly and very correctly seeking to keep intact are the limited now remaining powers to local authorities, one of which is the proper drawing up of their developmental plan, be it within an urban area or within a county area. As Senator Robinson has said, most of us in this House are members of local authorities. In the Athlone urban area last year, we drew up our developmental plan and took particular care with our listing of what we thought would have bearing on the historical and cultural heritage of the area. I took it from what the Minister quite correctly said, that he was leaving to the local authorities that very proper function.

With Senator Robinson I find it difficult to understand exactly, as the Bill stands, what draconian and dictatorial powers of control and supervision the heritage council are going to be able to exercise over local authorities, even if they wish to do so. We cannot really have a logical situation in which we talk about heritage buildings as only applying to buildings that are vested in State authorities while, next door to such a State heritage building there should be another building which might well be more appropriate or more valuable within the terms of the national heritage, as defined or implied by the long title of the Bill. The Minister is suggesting that the National Heritage Council should not know of and should not concern itself with such a building.

The concept that we are proposing with regard to State heritage buildings, to local authority heritage buildings and indeed, to heritage buildings which are in private ownership or custody, is that these should be seen together as a group. We do not ask or expect that the council should take full responsibility as implied by specific functions as outlined earlier with regard to all these buildings. We are not suggesting that. However I do not see how we can draw a dividing line strictly between them. We are not proposing any very vicious, draconian or dictatorial measures with regard to this. I would urge the Minister to consider what we are proposing here and to come back and give us the benefit of his mental and intellectual flexibility in this matter.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

When will we resume Committee Stage of this Bill?

Next week, I confidently hope.

Would it be in order to thank the Leader of the House for his optimism and cheerful aspect?

Top
Share