Senator Michael D. Higgins has a request under Standing Order No. 29. The time limit for such a discussion is one-and-a-half-hours. The practice is that the Minister be allowed 20 minutes to reply.
Request Under Standing Order 29: Protection of Archaeological Items.
The matter I am raising is that:
In view of the immediate threat to items of archaeological value posed by the decision of the High Court yesterday in relation to the Derrynaflan Find, the Seanad be informed of the Government's intention in relation to action, including such legislative action as is necessary, the legal implications and the Government's plans for the protection of such objects as are already lodged in the National Museum and at other locations managed by the State.
I would like straight away to thank the Cathaoirleach for facilitating me in raising this matter under Standing Order No. 29. I would like to thank the representatives of other groups in the Seanad for facilitating this process and also for their support earlier for this resolution being taken.
As a Senator representing a National University of Ireland constituency, I have been contacted by a number of people who are concerned and who are also professionally engaged in the area to which the Derrynaflan find and the consequent court decision relates. In the discussion within our own group of Labour Senators we were unanimous in trying to find a way in which we could reflect the urgent public concern that has been expressed concerning the decision yesterday.
What is being called into question is something very important and that is that the High Court has decided on the matter of possession of an artefact or set of artefacts which, in the view of all of us, would be part of the national heritage. It has not decided on the matter of ownership and we are in an unfortunate position now where we must look at the protection that exists for objects that are part of the national heritage and realise that, in the first instance, in the period of time between the High Court decision and the Supreme Court decision, we are vulnerable to serious aversions which are not in the interests of the sustenance and protection of the national heritage.
I ask for clarification in that regard because I am also aware that we are in the gap before the coming into effect of the National Monuments Bill which, when enacted, will protect us in the future. It will protect our sites and our heritage significantly. But what is to take place in the interim? It is to that that public concern is addressed. To judge this matter purely in terms of possession raises the most serious questions concerning our heritage. For a start, different Governments have always been advised — and they have taken the advice to a greater or lesser degree — by professional people who have made the elementary point that an object is important, not only in its own right but in the context in which it is located and discovered.
Thus, in every civilised country sites are protected. It is realised that the pulling of objects from the ground and destroying the earth layers and the other evidence that surrounds the object — in other words the rooting of it out of its context — is an act of enormous damage to the archaeological site in question. It seems that not only has that dimension of the object in context been ignored in the court decision but also that the very ownership of the object and the question of what constitutes the national heritage has been placed as secondary to the basic issue in law of possession or, more technically, the adjudging of bailor or bailee rights.
I find it rather preposterous to find an object, such as the one that was the subject of yesterday's decision of the High Court, being adjudged as an object without contextual significance, handed into possession and the judge deciding as to whether it should be handed back and asked to adjudge whether value had been added to it. In fact, the depression I reflected in the National Monuments Bill debate as to what the public attitude is towards objects like this, deepened when the argument in the newsprint concentrated on relative values to the exclusion to some extent of the more general points of the contextual value of these objects. However, there were some fine articles in this regard in the Irish newspapers today. But, by and large, the public have concentrated its mind on the very large sum of money that was mentioned in the court.
What is terribly important is that we realise the inadequacy of our protection at present. We are now entering a period in which we do not enjoy the protection of the new amending legislation. It is not at all clear what protections are there between now and the period of the adjudication of the appeal to the Supreme Court. Perhaps the Minister of State can advise me on this. I am anxious that my mind and the minds of those who have asked to bring this matter before the Seanad be placed at rest. Perhaps the advice of the Attorney General's Office in relation to retrospection will be that you cannot reach back and construe the placing of objects in the past as falling within the ambit of the decision given yesterday. But is this adequate? Is a construction based on the retrospective nature of a decision a sufficient protection? If that is not sufficient, then the question of emergency legislation arises, such as is necessary in order to protect as, I am asking, what is already placed in the National Museum and I very clearly specify "and at other locations managed by the State". I am aware that, because of the inadequacy of the resources perhaps, we have objects that are lodged in other places. We have not provided sufficient facilities for them to be placed on display.
Therefore, the nub of my argument is entirely the vulnerabilty of the national heritage. I am placing that prior to every other consideration. Comments have been made on the decision that have concentrated on the issues of trespass, that after all, the objects that were discovered were discovered by people who were trespassing on land. They were equally — and this is less so in my consideration; we are dealing with this in the National Momnuments Bill — using an instrument or set of instruments which will be heavily controlled under the legislation we are proposing.
The issue of compensation has arisen. Was the compenation adequate? I will return to these points for just a minute but, to my mind, they are not the most important aspects of the case. The most important aspect is the one of adequacy of protection. I am worried because of what the court has decided. It is a matter that the Supreme Court will have to adjudge. It is my own belief, as we stand in the year before the fiftieth anniversary of the 1937 Constitution, that there is need for a constitutional protection of the people's property such as the national heritage constitutes. Property rights and citizenship rights and possession have to be made contingent on these other greater rights which affect not only our lives today but which affect our history.
The newspapers have correctly drawn our attention to what might take place following this decision, should the appeal not take place. It has been suggested that perhaps there are over 20 other possible finds of equal significance and value to that of Derrynaflan undiscovered in Ireland. It has been described by one paper as possibly unleashing "a gold hunt" in the country. The mind boggles at the idea that in 1986 a country that has signed international agreements, that has participated in prestigious international events one after another — some organised by UNESCO and others organised by other prestigious bodies abroad — should be left vulnerable to the degree that you would have people with instruments trespassing and moving onto sites of national archaeological value and proceeding to root objects out of the ground, destroying our possibilities of reconstructing valuable parts of our past and that they could then enjoy the protection of the courts and that we would have the benefit of looking at them drinking champagne celebrating the fact that they had become Christmas millionaires. I asked myself whether I was living in a civilised island at all.
I understand the statement has already been made by the Minister of State for whose presence I am very grateful in the House this afternoon that an appeal will be stated to the Supreme Court. It would be useful if the Minister of State repeated unequivocally his commitment to protecting the nation's heritage and, perhaps, as he has so many more resources than I have and has more expert advice available to him, told us what his plans are in this regard in relation to protecting the national heritage otherwise than in terms of the legislation brought before the Houses already.
I have been speaking about the depressing aspects of this entire saga and the decision which has led to a commendable public outrage. Several people have commented on this to me. I know from the Senators who are speaking — and I understand from those on all sides of this House who this afternoon supported this move — that they reflect from their different constituencies and from the different areas they represent this sense of public outrage as to the position we are in.
We are at risk since February, 1980, when the discovery was first made and the items were handed to the National Museum. It occurred to me this morning when I read the report that the National Museum in the judgment were allowed £25,800 — £24,000 of which had been paid to the British Museum; £1,800 for photographic work — to wonder if we were reducing the National Museum to the level of some kind of technical ghetto at which people who go looting around the country and destroying the national heritage can arrive with their objects to be repaired and to be photographed and to be handed back to them under the protection of the courts? It is an outrageous situation in relation to our national heritage that we live with this judgment.
I do not belive we can get out of this by saying the judge had to decide within the law. The Supreme Court will decide that. I emphasise that the issue of possession has been commented upon by the High Court. The Supreme Court will decide issues such as the issue of ownership. There are other issues involved as well as deciding the whole circumstances stated before the High Court. A High Court judge can begin at any end of an object, at any end from his own reasoning about where he wants to begin. The issues in this case were not simple bailor-bailee relationships governing only the question of possession and the return of an object placed in possession from an individual or a State institution or whatever. He could have addressed straight away the question of ownership and the whole consequences that flow from the current argument on our treasure trove. Who is to say? Even when that has been struck down, we are left with the issue as to which objects have been hidden and which objects have been lost.
At the end of the eighties many people had made distinguished contributions to what constitutes the Irish heritage, part of which we have put on tour abroad in the United States and elsewhere. Many visitors come to our country and admire what has been made available, the painstaking work that has been carried on by people with very minimal resources. Are we to accept a situation in which the national assembly of this would be almost casual, to what we could achieve?
Others can, if they wish, develop this issue of trespass, the issue, for example, of whether the landowner owns particular objects. I am not happy with that kind of definition myself. The concept of the nation's heritage constituting a category of property is the one that I will press for in 1987 when the case for amending the Constitution, I hope, will be lodged. Such a definition exists, and the time has come to accept that. What right has an individual or set of individuals to set about destroying our possibilities of reconstructing the story ourselves, the whole imaginative past that we have had and so on? What right have they? Even in relation to institutions which have themselves limited resources, the strategy has always been to err on the side of caution in making sure, for example, that only the most experienced and trained people will have access to sensitive sites and so forth. The idea that people can be made millionaires on the basis of what we have just said, by a decision of the courts yesterday, makes it an extraordinarily sad day for Ireland.
I conclude by saying that many people have said this issue can be resolved if we can face the issue of adequate compensation. I do not agree. I think people who act responsibly should be compensated. Here the distinction between the amount recommended, as is reported by the National Museum and the Government, is a matter that could be debated. It seems to me, however, that there is a fundamental issue that precedes that and it is the issue as to what is the status of the objects and the value of the context in which they are placed.
I commend the Irish Independent— a paper I do not find myself always able to commend — for its excellent article by Ian Baird in which he mentions what happened to the Clare find of 1854 in my own parish where I was reared myself, when objects were gathered by a local broker and sold to be melted down. What happened a cape of gold which weighed 100 ounces, and was sold and melted down by a Cork goldsmith and so forth.
These are tragic cases. One could understand insecure peasants believing that they had stumbled on riches and thinking that by selling them they would marginally improve their lot but over 130 years have gone by and we are not talking about people discovering gold under bushes. We are talking about people being free to go out with instruments that are declared illegal in many countries in the world, to trespass, to go on to national sites and then to be secured by such headlines as "Finders Keepers". That decision, which comes at the culmination of a series of events that began in 1980 reflects a great deal of urgency. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
This debate is limited to one and a half hours and I know there are other speakers and for that reason my contribution will be brief. It is unfortunate in my view that it has taken a serious setback of this kind to underline the sad and unforgiveable fact that our laws concerning national monuments are woefully inadequate. What is worse is that the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986, does not in my opinion come to grips with the problem. I hope that in the forthcoming debate on Committee Stage I will be proved wrong.
There have been criticisms of this House. Some people have claimed it is an anachronism, superfluous, out of touch with the real world. I do not subscribe to those views. I think that recent legislation which has gone through this House would show otherwise, in the amendments that were tabled and incorporated in legislation. This motion puts a finger on the pulse of the widespread concern felt at this time. I hope the debate will contribute to a positive resolution of the problem.
The Committee Stage of the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill will be taken here next Tuesday and there are 67 amendments tabled. That is an indication of the interest this House has in this area. A very important section of this Bill, section 2, deals with the restriction in the use of detection devices. Senator Higgins has referred to treasure trove and the general behalf of "finders keepers" and this aspect of the matter is not dealt with in the Bill. People use detection devices and detectors to discover hidden treasure and they use fairly expensive instruments; they put a lot of time into it and expend a lot of energy in digging up the ground. In some ways I am not totally happy with section 2 and I hope the cure does not turn out to be worse than the disease. That is something we will be dealing with when the time comes.
The Bill does not deal with the important question of ownership. Senator Higgins has referred to this and I would take a slightly different view from his. This is an important question and for that reason I have tabled a new section, section 22, which is short and which I would like to read: It states:
Where an artefact or object is considered an archaeological object and is acquired by the National Museum otherwise than as a gift, payment shall be made to the owner of the land on which such artefact or object was discovered. Where the amount of the payment is not agreed an appeal may be made to the Historic Monuments Advisory Committee whose decision shall be binding.
That section may not be considered perfect or indeed totally adequate but, in my view, at least it attempts to deal with the problem. There is a belief — shaken, I agree by this case — that the right of ownership of land extends to everything on or in the land. It would extend, for example, to a disused item of domestic or agricultural use such as a spade, a bucket or something of that nature. If the Derrynaflan hoard were above the ground what would be the position? It would no doubt have belonged to the farmer who owned the land. Because the farmer did not sanction or allow the use of certain aids, it would seem to me wrong to assume that the finders could be keepers.
I have mentioned in this House, and I will just very briefly refer to it again in passing, the situation as regards the Book of Kells. The Book of Kells is in Trinity College but the people of Kells believe that this book belongs to Kells. Suppose the people of Kells or somebody representing them took that Book out of Trinity College by some means — it would undoubtedly be a criminal act — but in the light of this case, they would not be condemned for doing that because the actual taking away of the hoard from the land was not condemned. In my view it is exactly the same case. It has been said that the court decision is incomprehensible and of course it is.
More aspects of this case are also incomprehensible, and I ask the question: why was that particular course taken? According to reports in the papers, Mr. Justice Blayney had decided in July last that the hoard found in Derrynaflan Island, Littleton Bog, County Tipperary, on 17 February 1980 should be returned to Mr. Webb and his son. That decision was made last July. The State was claiming an allowance for work done in restoring the chalice and the hoard. That was a waste of time. The State should have been attempting to prove that the Webbs had no legal right to the hoard. Mr. Justice Blayney said he had no doubt that the staff of the National Museum honestly believed the State was the owner of the hoard and what work they did was done in that belief. But was that sufficient, he is reported to have asked, in the light of the fact that they had notice of a claim by the Webbs to have the hoard returned to them?
May I quote a very small extract of the judgment from today's issue of The Cork Examiner on page 4, which is as follows:
I consider that the fact that they had received notice of a claim resulted in a situation in which they ought to have been aware, irrespective of what they believed, that there was a risk that the claim was valid and they necessarily accepted that risk.
I think that it is a serious indictment, not alone of the National Museum but of the whole structure concerned in the State also. I know it was a very difficult situation for the museum. The Webbs are reported to have said that they would have been satisfied with a reasonable settlement and, of course, that begs the question, what would be considered reasonable? Perhaps what is meant there is "substantial". In any event, who decides? Nevertheless, in this situation I think the £10,000 offered was far too little. According to reports, the museum decided to offer £200,000 to the Webbs after the chalice was found but the Government overturned the decision and stipulated that £10,000 should be the maximum reward. That was a serious mistake.
I know it is easy to be wise with hindsight. I know that in paying a large award the museum might be considered to be condoning trespass and encouraging it when the question of landownership comes up. I think it is agreed it is criminal to excavate an archaeological site and to interfere with the history that is written into the fabric and into the layers of that site. It has been said that it would be better to leave this hoard for another 100 or 200 years and to get the full picture by ensuring the proper excavation. Under the new law it would be a statutory offence on conviction or indictment liable to a fine not exceeding £50,000 or 12 months in prison or both to use a metal detector on an archaeological site. This hoard has great monetary value. Evidence from the Webbs show that the hoard's value on the open market, if there were no restriction on it being exported from Ireland, would be £5 million to £8 million. Evidence for the State was on the basis that the hoard could not be legally sold outside the country and on this basis its value was £5,536,000.
I do not want to go into the legal aspects of this case. There are ways of getting around the law; there are more ways of killing the cat than choking it with milk. I believe that the value is far in excess of that amount, more than ten times as much. It is priceless, it is something that cannot be replaced. It has an important cultural value and is part of our national heritage. Senator Higgins referred to the commendable public outrage which is widespread at this time. This debate is very timely and I hope that out of this debate something positive and immediate will be instigated.
I would like briefly to support the two previous Senators in seeking a statement from the Minister responsible in this regard. As Senator Michael D. Higgins said there is a very substantial degree of public disquiet in regard to what has happened. As the public see it, a person was trespassing, a person was using an instrument long considered by those experts in the field as a dangerous damaging instrument and now considered by public opinion to be an unsuitable instrument and an instrument declared in the Bill now going through this House as an illegal instrument. Senators will be gratified that the Minister in charge of the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill has met in the amendments now tabled the criticism of this House that the original form of the Bill contained penalties that were far too mild for the use of such an instrument. It has not only greatly increased the financial penalties but has added the threat of imprisonment to the use of such instruments.
Unfortunately, that is in the future. What we are talking about is a case in which such an instrument was used, in which a hole was dug with whatever degree of energy and expertise the finder and his son possessed and there was removed from that hole an object which has now been valued at over £5 million. The public looking at what happened and watching their television sets last night with the news of the judgment which was made and the news of the celebration of the finders were perturbed. If one were asked to summarise the reaction of the public which one has heard during today, it indeed is the reaction which one finds in chapter 51 of Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens: “ `If the law supposes that,' said Mr. Bumble ... `the law is a ass — a idiot.' ”
I am precluded by Standing Orders from doing more than giving this public opinion and I hastily say that I do not consider that this is necessarily true. I certainly am not suggesting that the judge who ruled on a very narrow issue in the court is either an ass or an idiot.
The action which was at issue was an action for the return of this chalice to the finders and it specifically stated in the judgment and I quote from that judgment as follows:
The action is not concerned with the ownership of the hoard and will not determine its ownership.
The concern that has been raised by Senator Michael D. Higgins and shared by Senator Fitzsimons is this very fact of ownership. What happened in court yesterday was not concerned with the main point of ownership. It is a matter of regret also, as Senator Fitzsimons has said, that the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill which will clear this House next week and be passed on for consideration to another place does not deal with that issue either. It is a matter for consideration for the Minister in charge of that Bill — who is not the Minister present with us today — and for the Senators who have been expressing an interest in it whether it will be possible on Committee or Report Stage within the scope of that Bill as read a Second Time to amend it in such a way as at least to start the process of clearing up this doubtful legal area in regard to ownership. There is an urgent need that the question of treasure trove needs to be determined without delay either by the courts or by the legislature.
There was a suggestion in the leading article in The Irish Times this morning that the question of treasure trove was a sort of popular lore which had now been found to have no foundation and is, in fact, almost like the belief that if you followed to the end of the rainbow you would find a pot of gold and that it had not much more foundation than that.
I would like to talk for a few minutes about the reason there was a belief that there was still a law of treasure trove in this country. I have had occasion to advert to this matter because I have been and am now a member of the Council of the Royal Irish Academy and was at one time an officer of that body.
The situation during the last century when many of the great treasures of our national collection were acquired by the nation was that they were acquired through the Royal Irish Academy and that was facilitated by the fact that the Royal Irish Academy in the year 1860 asked for and was granted the right to deal with treasure trove in Ireland. It carried out that task of acquisition throughout the next 30 years, until the National Museum was founded and it then handed over its collection to the National Museum. Since then the Royal Irish Academy has always considered that it was the de jure authority for treasure trove while the Museum was the de factor authority in the sense that large purchases were financed by the Museum, through the Academy.
The situation which has arisen here is a most unfortunate one, but it is not the only case in the history of treasure trove in Ireland in which there have been difficulties. It is perhaps interesting to recall that the item of our public treasure which can be most closely compared with the Derrynaflan chalice also had a difficult history; I refer to the Ardagh chalice. The differences were there. There were difficulties in both cases. In the case of the Ardagh chalice court action was avoided by an astute handling of those difficulties. In the case of the Derrynaflan chalice court action was not avoided and there is a suspicion that a good deal of this may be due to a maladroit handling of the whole business.
Without wishing to go into this in any detail, I think it likely that if the National Museum, which is the repository of our treasures, the material part of our heritage, were given a greater degree of autonomy and greater power to make its own decisions in regard to such questions as the acquisition of treasure trove, this question might not have risen. I do not think there would be any doubt in anyone's mind when I say that the intervention of a dead hand may well have produced the present impasse because the Department to which that dead hand belongs is well known to all of us.
We have got ourselves into a mess. I talk collectively — not the Seanad but the State — acting on behalf of all of us.
A simple law is needed putting the position of ownership of treasure trove beyond any doubt. Whatever happens by appeal to the Supreme Court or by special legislative action in regard to the present case, the message we must give the Minister, and through him give the Government, on this occasion is that speedy action and proper foresight are needed to make sure there is no repetition of what can only be described as the Derrynaflan debacle.
As a Tipperary man I would prefer not to have to say anything on this matter at present. At the same time I agree completely with most of what has been said by the three previous speakers. It is a sad state of affairs that nobody seemed to know who owned important things of this kind without having the matter dragged through the courts. Years ago legislation should have been brought in to finalise matters of this kind.
My principal reason for speaking is that one might get the impression from Senator Higgins that Michael Webb was a looter. We are fortunate to have a man of Michael Webb's calibre in Ireland. I have known him for a number of years. He is a member of the county museum committee and of the national monuments committee in south Tipperary. He has given us much advice at meetings down through the years. We were lucky that it was a man like Michael Webb who discovered the chalice because he took great care to ensure that it would not be damaged in any way whatsoever. If someone else had stumbled on it accidently they could have damaged it in such a way that it could never be repaired or perhaps we might never have heard about it. Michael Webb realised that it was a very valuable chalice. He went to the National Museum, told them of the discovery and brought it to them. That was the first time we heard about it in south Tipperary. He did not run off to anybody else with the chalice.
Reference was made to the fact that he was drinking champagne last night to celebrate. It would be hard to blame him for that. I am sorry Senator Higgins is not here because I read recently that the Bishop of Galway in the past used always have a glass of champagne after his lunch. I do not think Michael Webb ever thought the value of the chalice would be placed at £5 million. I am quite sure that if in the very early stages a genuine offer has been made to him by the National Museum he would have settled for it. I know he is a man who wants to see this chalice remain in Ireland.
Mention was made of metal detectors. There is something in the National Mounments Bill about fines for people caught with metal detectors. It is like closing the door when the horse has gone because that practice seems to have eased up, at least in Tipperary. About two years ago or so you would see people with metal detectors out every day at castles, old ruins and cemeteries, going over them with a fine comb, so to speak. I doubt that there is much left in the ground to be found. What I would be afraid of is that other valuables may have been discovered and not reported to anyone. We should be grateful to Michael Webb for what he did. He would have been only too pleased in the early days of the find — maybe not now — to accept a just award for that valuable find.
I am very pleased that this issue of such major national and vital importance to the whole area of our heritage and culture should have come up so promptly for discussion in one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is appropriate also that the House that has taken it first, by way of this debate as requested by Senator Higgins, is the Seanad with its vocational structure, its distinguished history and the concern it has shown for the whole area of heritage, culture and the arts in the past.
As has been stated by all Senators the case is now going to the Supreme Court. I want to assure the House that the State will take all steps open to it to avoid delay in the processing of appeals to the Supreme Court in this very important issue on the Derrynaflan hoard. In view of the fact that an appeal is being taken to the Supreme Court, it would be inappropriate to discuss the specific implications of the High Court decision. I have taken advice on that matter and the weight of the advice is not to go too deeply into specifics. However, within those constraints I hope I will be of assistance to the Senators who are so concerned with this issue.
The second important point I would seek to make is to clarify what precisely the High Court decision was about. I know that the Senators have already done that but I think there is a general misconception, and probably understandably so, presented if you like by the newspaper in a popular and a readable form. Arising out of that there is a misconception entirely of what the High Court decision was.
In order to allay public concern in this matter it is important to note that the decision of the High Court yesterday was concerned with the narrow technical grounds of the Law of Bailement. The High Court did not decide the question of ownership. Significant issues have not been addressed because of the grounds on which the case was brought. That was the reason. The law relating to the protection of archaeological sites and objects as it now stands is not affected in any way by what happened. It is, therefore, still unlawful to excavate archaeologically without, or otherwise than in accordance with, the licence issued for the purpose by the Commissioners of Public Works. Let me repeat, the decision of the High Court does not affect the law of property, trespass or the statutes preserving the heritage. Therefore, I seek very much to join with the Senators in straightening out this important element of the case. It had nothing to do with ownership. The judge went out of the way to say that he was not called on to address the question of ownership. There is a serious misconception abroad that that is what was being decided. Put at its simplest, the finders deposited the Derrynaflan hoard in the Museum under certain conditions laid down by themselves and they asked for the Derrynaflan hoard back under those conditions. That is the narrow technical area in which the case was heard and brought.
The Senators will be aware of the Government's determination to update and reform the law relating to national monuments and archaeological objects. In this respect it is important — although it generally is not done because of the pressures of immediate legislation — in the field of legislation to have some type of system by which we begin examining the various flaws we have rather than waiting for some crisis to arise before we get involved in it. This is possible in the area in which I am involved, the Arts and Culture area, where we may operate at a more leisurely pace than other Departments so far as immediate legislation is concerned. We have an obligation to do that in our area and I am doing it because I became very conversant with this danger that existed with the finding of very important Spanish Armada wrecks off the coastline in Sligo.
The National Monument (Amendments) Bill, 1986 extends the powers of protection and preservation under the existing Act and introduces new regulations in relation to the use of metal detectors and the protection of underwater wrecks. When this legislation becomes law, the use of metal detectors at protected sites or anywhere else where the purpose is to search for archaeological objects, will be subject to licence. The power to decide the circumstances in which licences are issued and the conditions imposed therein will introduce a regime of controls which will ensure adequate protection of sites under State protection and generally.
At the same time it is not the Government's intention to subject the use of metal detectors for legitimate purposes such as tracing pipes and cables to control under the National Monuments Act.
There were some important points brought up by Senator Fitzsimons and he gave us the benefit of his ideas as regards amendments which he will be putting down. The more appropriate place to discuss those would be on Committee Stage of the National Monuments Bill. In the light of the impending appeal I feel it better not to go into the very specific areas which will be covered by the proposed amendment by Senator Fitzsimons.
Because the appeal has not been lodged the Minister should surely have no inhibition in commenting on the grounds.
While the Senator was out he missed two important points. The most important of all was a tribute to himself for having put down the motion and also a tribute to the House of which he is a Member saying that it was an ideal form in which these should be discussed. I also explained that we were losing no time so far as appealing to the Supreme Court was concerned and that I had taken advice on this matter. Arising out of that advice I decided not to go into too many specifics but within that limitation to try to be as helpful as I could to Senators.
I would like to point out that the increasing rate of improper exploitation of our heritage is posing a great strain on the resources of the the State in the protection, conservation and presentation to the public of important objects of our heritage. As a community we must reserve the right to protect our heritage in an orderly and appropriate fashion. In this context, it has been said that if the Derrynaflan hoard had not been discovered in the way it was, it would never have been discovered. This is something we have heard very many times. I reject that suggestion.
There were proposals for archaeological excavations at Derrynaflan in the past. It is a national monument and a very important one. These did not materialise at the time. However, an archaeological excavation is today a sine qua non of comprehensive conservation and presentation schemes at national monuments. We will have seen this in the excellent work that is being done around the country. Derrynaflan is a national monument and the Commissioners of Public Works have a well established programme of conserving national monuments. It is quite certain, therefore, that in due course a proper excavation would have taken and will take place at this site to recover all the historical evidence before structural conservation is undertaken.
I have become very conversant with the work of the National Museum. One thing that has impinged on me which is not generally known or acceptable by the public is the extraordinary importance of not disturbing the surroundings in which a hoard, find or some artefact is found because of the scholarly material. The exercise that can be done around it greatly enhances the value of the object if it is properly excavated and properly done by trained archaeologists who know their business and will not disrupt and destroy irreplacable evidence from the past.
I would also like to address the specific question of the status of objects already acquired by the National Museum. The overwhelming majority of these have been acquired by agreement. I am advised that where such agreements exist there is no reason to think they would be overturned.
In that regard can the Minister say a little more as to whether that is based on the advice of the Attorney General's office and whether it feels it is sufficient and can be extended to all objects in the National Museum, particularly those not acquired by agreement? I am not obstructing the Minister but I am trying to clarify the position in the interim between now and the Supreme Court judgment.
That is based on the advice of the National Museum who are in constant contact with the Attorney General's office on these matters. I had occasion to go into that matter in recent times so it is not something that has suddenly arisen out of this difficulty. I am very happy in that respect, as far as the other artefacts are concerned. The outcome of the Supreme Court appeal in the Derrynaflan case will have major implication for the legislative provisions governing our heritage. The further amendment of legislation, as necessary, will be speedily completed when the Supreme Court judgment becomes available. A constitutional referendum in the matter may be necessary and will be considered at that time.
I would like to again express my appreciation of the fact that this matter was brought so promptly to the Floor of the House. I would like to assure Senators that all necessary steps will be taken and with all urgency, to defend our heritage. In the light of the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal and in the light of the developments from this case already, the law will be strengthened in all ways that are needed and if necessary, proposals will be brought forward to make appropriate changes in the Constitution. I can assure the Senators in the strongest possible terms that they need have no fear about our will and our determination in this respect. In doing so, I am sure I would have the unanimous support of this House and of the Dáil. I am also sure, in the light of the reaction that I got today, that we would have the overwhelming support of the people at large in any kind of referendum or in any way necessary to bring about those changes that will safeguard our heritage. We are the beneficiaries from the past. We have a major obligation to hand on all those incredible treasures that we are lucky enough to have intact. We also have an obligation to present them to the public in the most attractive possible fashion, as has been done as far as our archaeological artefacts and treasures are concerned in the new treasury in the National Museum. We will continue with that work. That is a matter of presentation and display. We will also continue with the other important work that has now come up, that is in ensuring that we will defend and care for our heritage. If necessary, we will change the laws. I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to say that in the House. I am very thankful to the Senators for the excellent contributions that have been made.
I would like to thank the Minister of State for his response.