Government amendments Nos. 41 and 43 are similar and Government amendment No. 42 is related and are to be discussed together.
National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 5.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 11, subsection (2) (b), line 27, to delete "the commencement of this section" and to substitute "such commencement".
Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 are being discussed together. There are changes proposed by the parliamentary draftsman to improve the Bill. They do not affect the meaning in any way.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 11, subsection (2) (c), line 29, to delete "became" and to substitute "become".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 11, subsection (2) (c), lines 29 and 30, to delete "the commencement of this section" and to substitute "such commencement".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 11, subsection (2) line 31, after "opinion," to insert "or in the opinion of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Historic Monuments Council,".
It is clear that the commissioners do not have to accept the views of the Historic Monuments Council. We feel they should have a considerable imput and that if two thirds of the members are of a particular opinion it would give more teeth to the section if this amendment were included.
I have some sympathy with this particular amendment because it would have the effect of giving a real serious purpose to this committee and would require that attention would have to be paid to them. I also see difficulties in regard to it. The question is that by exercising this power there would be an implicit and an inherent undertaking of expenditure. It is undesirable that an advisory committee be set up this way in order to help the commissioners, who are a statutory authority under the Department of Finance, to reach a conclusion, in areas where the commissioners are entitled to incur charges on State funds. It creates a very real difficulty for us.
I was talking last night about the question of a possible annual report by the commissioners and of the fact that in this annual report reference should be made to the activities of the advisory committee. If it was obligatory on the commissioners to list in their annual report every occasion on which they had disagreed with a vote of two-thirds of the advisory council then the question of there being conflict would become public knowledge. If we take the amendment in its bald form here, it virtually gives the advisory council the right to spend money on preservation which is strictly the function of the commissioners.
In the context of section 5 I think I can usefully raise two issues. It provides for the setting up of a Register of Historic Monuments.
We are on the amendment, not the section. We will come to the section when I clear the amendment.
Thank you.
The role of the Historic Monuments Council will be to advise. They will not have an executive role. It would not be proper, therefore, to give them authority to decide what monuments should be included in the register. I would expect that they will, on occasions, advise the commissioners of different monuments which they considered should be included in the register and I would expect that, in the main, their advice will be accepted. In relation to the annual report which we discussed last night, while I do not favour an annual report being issued by the Historic Monuments Council I feel that an annual report from the Commissioners of Public Works in relation to their activity on historic monuments and on national monuments would be very worth-while. I have requested today that that be done and I am assured that the first annual report from the commissioners in relation to our built heritage and their involvement will issue at the end of 1987. I have also asked that included in that report would be a reference to the Historic Monuments Council and a frank reporting of the relationship and of the operations of the Historic Monuments Council vis-á-vis the commissioners and their authority in this area. I have been assured that this can and will be done and we will have the first report at the end of 1987. It will not be a report of the Historic Monuments Council but of the commissioners in relation to our work in the built heritage and national monuments generally.
As the section is drafted at present there is no obligation on the commissioners to take the advice of the Historic Monuments Council. Irrespective of how meritorious the advice given by the Historic Monuments Council may be, the commissioners can if they wish ignore that advice. The idea behind this amendment is that when it appears that the advice of the Historic Monuments Council is almost unanimous, or that of a very large majority of the members, the commissioners should be obliged to accept that advice. I would be satisfied if the Minister gave an assurance that where the advice of the Historic Monuments Council was the unanimous opinion of the council, the commissioners would be obliged to accept it.
My position effectively does not change. The only advice the Commissioners of Public Works are obliged to accept is advice from the Minister for Finance for obvious reasons. I cannot accept the case made by Senator Mullooly or Senator Fitzsimons, although I fully understand why they make the case. The goodwill and the advice of the Historic Monuments Council will in most cases be accepted by the commissioners. Suffice it to say that there are three or four amendments in the Bill that have come to us from the National Monuments Advisory Council, since they were reconstituted three weeks ago. It is advice we have accepted and they are included. I hope Senators will accept that as the intention of the commissioners — to accept their advice and act accordingly, but ultimately they will not have an executive function. Our only adviser who will be absolute will be the Minister for Finance.
Sitting suspended at 5.25 p.m. and resumed at 5.40 p.m.
What we are talking about in the section is the entering of historic monuments and sites in the Register of Historic Monuments. Surely the listing of these historic monuments and sites would have no financial implications for the commissioners? Because of the fact that such historic monuments and sites would be entered in the register, there would be an obligation on the commissioners to notify the owners of these sites of the penalties that might be incurred if anyone were guilty of an offence under section 2 of the Act. It would also ensure that the commissioners would have to be notified before any work could be carried out in or near such sites and monuments. I feel that, where it is the unanimous opinion of the Historic Monuments Council that a particular site or monument should be entered in the Register of Historic Monuments, there should be some obligation on the commissioners to accept the advice of the Historic Monuments Council since the acceptance of such advice would not have any financial implications as far as the commissioners are concerned.
I want to refer to the Minister's promise to have an annual report published by the commissioners starting in 1987. I welcome that decision. It is a positive response to the case we were making and I am satisfied with it and I am sure my colleagues are also. I thank the Minister.
With regard to this specific amendment, it is important to remember that we are not talking of any particular body here but a very erudite specialised body.
Section 4 (3) reads:
The members of the Council shall be appointed from time to time as occasion requires by the Minister and shall consist of—
(a) a representative of the Taoiseach nominated by the Taoiseach,
(b) a representative of the Minister for Communications nominated by the Minister for Communications,
(c) a representative of the Commissioners nominated by the Commissioners,
(d) a representative of each of the following bodies nominated by the body of which he is the representative, namely:
(i) Trinity College, Dublin,
(ii) University College, Dublin,
(iii) University College, Cork,
(iv) University College, Galway,
(v) Queen's University, Belfast,
(vi) Bord Fáilte Éireann,
(vii) the Royal Irish Academy,
(viii) the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland,
(ix) the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland,
(x) the Maritime Institute of Ireland,
and
(e) such other persons not exceeding five in number as the Minister may determine from time to time.
This a very erudite, specialised, professional body. Under the Bill the commissioners might not accept a recommendation or advice from this body. This is unacceptable. I agree that the function of the council is advisory and not executive, as the Minister has said. Under those circumstances where you have dedicated and specialised people, it is proper that there should be some compulsion on the commissioners to accept a majority recommendation. Clearly, in that area it is not always possible to get unanimity. We are looking for a situation in which two-thirds of the members would make a specific recommendation. I think that is reasonable.
With regard to what Senator Dooge has said in relation to cost — and a charge — if we are to achieve anything worthwhile it is reasonable to assume that it will have to cost something which will have to be paid for. This would be taken into account by such a specialised body. As Senator Mullooly has said, by adding the names to the register there is no cost involved in the exercise. The fact that a particular monument would be on the register might involve a charge. These are not reasonable grounds to reject the amendment. The effect of the amendment would be to increase the power of the advisory body which is a good thing.
Basically I have little to add to what I have already said. I have heard nothing that would warrant changing my mind. I accept what both Senators have said. The commissioners can be legally challenged on entries in the register but not the Historic Monuments Council. As the commissioners, and only the commissioners, make the entry, therefore the commissioners have to bear in mind the consequences of making that entry and the ultimate decision is theirs. We cannot have another body that is effectively making the decisions and dictating to the commissioners what to do. I reiterate my point that as far as the Commissioners of Public Works are concerned, the only advice they have to accept is advice from the Minister for Finance. Even though I would expect in virtually all cases that they would listen to and heed the advice of the Historic Monuments Council, I would not agree to making it obligatory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 11, subsection (3), line 32, after "amend" to insert ",add".
It would seem that "amend" would cover additions to the register. At the same time "amend" might simply refer to amendments with regard to increasing the size of an area or something of that nature. While, strictly speaking, I feel it is covered adequately in the section, perhaps it would be satisfactory to accept this amendment and to ensure that the addition is clearly dealt with in the section.
This amendment is superfluous as additions to the register are provided for in subsection (2). Therefore, there is no need for this amendment. All of subsection (2) deals with additions to the register.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 11, subsection (4), line 34, to delete "Subject to subsection (6) of this section, the" and substitute "The".
Amendment No. 47 states:
In page 11, subsection (6), lines 47 and 48, to delete "but subsection (4) of this section shall not apply in relation to the monument".
These two subsections deal with publication in Irish Oifigiúil. I recognise that to date the position seems to be that those monuments would have been published in Iris Oifigiúil. As I stated during the Second Stage debate, where we are trying to update any laws — and here we are dealing with national monuments — it would have been more satisfactory if we had scrapped totally the 1930 and the 1954 Acts and started out afresh, or to have one single Act without having to make reference to other Acts so that in one corporate Act we would have all the legislation dealing with national monuments. That would have been more satisfactory.
Before a Seanad election, the lists of county councillors are published in Iris Oifigiúil. It is very helpful to people who are canvassing for the Seanad. If we could have in one copy of Iris Oifigiúil a list of all the national monuments, it would save having to go back to old editions. That is the purpose of these amendments.
The Bill provides that in the case of a monument already listed under the present legislation, an entry in the register need not be published in Iris Oifigiúil, nor need the present owners or occupiers be notified of the entry in the register or of the penalties which may be incurred for an offence under this section.
The effect of Senator Fitzsimon's amend would be that the entry would have to be republished in Iris Oifigiúil. I am not convinced or the need for this, nor even for the reasons the Senator mentioned himself. The Commissioners of Public Works will, at any stage, supply the complete list of any items or any structures on the register. However, on reflection, it would be important to notify owners and occupiers of the entry in the register, particularly in view of the increased penalties for offences under this section. Accordingly, I propose to introduce, on Report Stage, an amendment to subsection (7) of this section which may go a long way towards meeting the Senator's wishes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are similar and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 12, subsection (7), line 12, after "Act", to add "All notifications issued under this subsection shall be in writing and shall be sent by registered post."
The section as drafted states:
(7) Where
(a) an entry is made in the Register in respect of a historic monument (other than a monument referred to in subsection (6) of this section, or other archaeological area, or (b) an entry made in the Register in respect of a monument or other archaeological area is amended or deleted,
the Commissioners shall, as soon as may be, cause the reputed owner and (if the owner is not the occupier) the reputed occupier of the monument or area to be notified of the entry, amendment or deletion as the case may be and, in a case to which paragraph (a) of this subsection applies, of the penalties which may be incurred by a person guilty of an offence under this section or section 2 of this Act.
While the subsection states that the owner or the occupier is to be notified, it is not specified in the section as to how the notification is to be issued. Is it sufficient under the subsection that the Commissioners would notify the owner or the occupier by means of a telephone call, or would the owner or occupier be required to be called on personally to be notified? What we are suggesting in amendment No. 48 is that all notifications issued under this subsection would be in writing and would be sent to the owner or the occupier, or the persons to whom the section requires them to be sent, by registered post and in writing. If this amendment is accepted, there will be no doubt as to whether or not a particular owner or occupier was notified. There would be a record of the notification and there would also be an acknowledgement of the receipt of the notification by the occupier.
What I have said in relation to amendment No. 48 applies to amendment No. 49. While subsection (8) specifies that where the owner or the occupier of a site of an archaeological area or an historic monument intends to carry out some work in the area of the monument, or where he intends to permit some person to carry out some work in the area of the monument, he shall give notice of his proposal to the commissioners. The subsection does not state how that notice is to be given. In my view, it would not be sufficient that notice would be given by means of a telephone call. That is why I suggest that notice be given in writing and in the case of notices issued by the commissioners and would be issued by registered post.
I accept both Senator Mullooly's amendments in principle. I will have the matter thoroughly examined before Report Stage.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 49 not moved.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 12, subsection (8), lines 19 and 20, to delete "for a period of two months after having given the notice" and substitute "until he is notified by the Commissioners that there is no objection to the work as proposed or with variations."
This subsection refers to where the owner or occupier of an historic monument or other person proposes to carry out work and makes application that work will not be carried out for a period of two months. Presumably, this is to give the commissioners an oportunity to consider the question and come to a decision, something like the situation we have in the planning Acts. It is an area of importance. The decision might involve a much longer time than two months. It is not in the interest of the Bill, in dealing with the preservation of monuments, to have this period of two months included. It would be better if that was omitted. We should leave it open-ended specifically to deal with situations in which it might take a long time to arrive at a decision.
The effect of this amendment in the case of a monument entered in the register would be to hold up indefinitely an owner planning to do some work on the monument. It is reasonable to require the commissioners to decide within two months or 60 days whether to allow work to proceed as planned or to negotiate a more acceptable variation of the proposal to prevent any work by placing a preservation order on the monument. This is the present position in relation to national monuments and it is the position we are trying to arrive at in relation to An Bord Pleanála, to take a parallel situation. At the moment An Bord Pleanála have an open-ended timescale in which they can decide on issues. That is causing a lot of difficulties in relation to work on the ground. We should have a limited timescale, a finite timescale and I am happy that two months is reasonable.
The Minister has referred to An Bord Pleanála. The time that is taken now to come to a decision is in many cases, shorter than it used to be. I welcome that. Would the Minister not agree that a period of two months is not sufficient? Let us again relate this to the planning laws. When a planning authority receive an application they have two months to arrive at a decision but before the end of that two month period the planning authority can write out for more particulars. Then a further period of two months is allowed to the planning authority from the time that information is delivered to them.
Therefore, there is scope in the planning laws to extend that period. Would the Minister not agree that in one important instance the two month period might not be sufficient? Would it not be advisable to cater for that eventuality and make provision for the period to be extended in certain exceptional circumstances?
Effectively we have power to extend that time by, for example, imposing a temporary preservation order. If we cannot deal with an application for work to a monument that is on the register within the two month time limit, the commissioners are empowered to impose a preservation order that will extend it to six months and within that six months all the details and all the difficulties should be ironed out and a decision made. Effectively we have power through our temporary preservation order system to extend it to six months if the two months period does not suffice on the odd occasion when a decision cannot be reached.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of State and the Office of Public Works for the use of the temporary preservation order in relation to Rathfarnham Castle in recent times and the indications there are that there might be further involvement by the Office of Public Works in due course.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 12, lines 21 and 22, to delete subsection (9) and substitute the following:
"(9) A person who tampers with, damages or removes any part of any monument which is entered in the register or who offers for sale, purchases or is in possession of any archaeological object removed from such monument or archaeological area or who otherwise contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence.".
If this section is to have any teeth in relation to the preservation of the monuments and areas which will be listed in the register, we must spell out clearly in the section the offences in relation to these monuments and areas. This is what we have attempted to do in this amendment. This amendment spells out clearly and in an unambiguous way that a person who tampers with, damages or removes any part of any monument which is entered in the register, or offers for sale any item removed from any archaeological area listed in the register, will not be under any illusions as to the gravity of his actions and will see from that part of the proposed legislation that to do any of these things is a serious offence.
We are all aware of instances where serious damage has been done to historic monuments. We all know that artefacts have been removed from archaeological areas. One of the reasons this is happening may be that people are not clear on what is permissible and what is not. If the Minister accepts this amendment this section will make clear actions which are not acceptable and which are offences under the section.
The thrust of this Bill is to deal with the abuse of national monuments. It is comparatively easy to do this in a way that possibly would not be discovered. For example, at Staholmog, Dunshaughlin, there have recently been discoveries of very important oran stone slabs. These are simple stones that any person could put in the boot of a car. The one in Staholmog is now built into a wall. If this had been discovered in another country it would have been enshrined in a proper way. People do not have to use a metal detector or even a spade. I have seen important stones thrown on the surface of the old graveyard in Kells and these can be removed. Subsection (9) should be enlarged. Amendment No. 51 is intended to deal with all those eventualities. I think this amendment would be a considerable improvement in the Bill.
Under subsection (8) the owner or occupier of an historic monument or archaeological area that is entered in the register is forbidden to do any work to the monument or area except following two months notice to the commissioners or with the consent of the commissioners. I must, therefore, oppose the Senator's amendment on two grounds, namely, (1), that it is unnecessary and, (2), that it conflicts with subsection (8) which allows for some interference with historic monuments either with the consent of the commissioners or in default of a reply from the commissioners following two months notice. It is the intention to include in the register all pre-1700 structures irrespective of their merits. It may not be reasonable to preserve all of these or not to allow some interference with some of them. The Bill allows for the commissioners to consider each proposal on its merits.
With regard to offering for sale or being in possession of an archaeological object removed from an historic monument, the owner of the site is the legal owner of archaeological objects found on it. If he finds the objects by means of an unapproved excavation, he will be guilty of an offence but if he comes upon them by accident he is free to dispose of them. As I have already said, the whole question of archaeological objects needs to be given careful consideration but I cannot do this until the Supreme Court has clarified the position in relation to treasure trove.
The Minister states that the amendment is in conflict with subsection (8) but subsection (8) only deals with a situation where the owner or the occupier interferes with the monument or the archaeological area. If the damage is done by somebody who trespasses on the site, that is not provided for and, under the proposed amendment, that would also be covered. As I see it, where somebody other than the owner or the occupier interferes with an archaeological area or damages or removes any part of any monument, that is not dealt with and that is what this amendment seeks to deal with.
I am prepared to look at this again on Report Stage but the way the amendment is worded would not be acceptable. Perhaps we could look at something along the lines of a person other than the owner who tampers with, etc. Could the Senator leave it with me and I will come back on Report Stage and we will see if we can meet our minds on this particular one.
Did I understand the Minister correctly to say that if somebody comes across an artefact or a small monument, say a slab, without excavating, on the surface of the ground, that person is free to dispose of it as he or she might decide? In my view, this brings up the important question of ownership which I am sure would take us a very long time to deal with. I am sure it is not coming up at this time. It does seem to me that we have to think of situations where very important monuments might be discovered on sites which are not considered of great importance. I think this is a common occurrence but, in any event, surely the question of ownership comes in here. I am sure I did not hear the Minister correctly. Surely the Minister did not say somebody who found an object could dispose of it without taking into consideration this whole important question of ownership?
This whole area will be clarified in the outcome of the Supreme Court case. We are into the area of what is treasure trove and what is an archaeological object or is there such a thing as treasure trove and does the Royal prerogative exist effectively, thereby defining treasure trove as belinging to the State. If an owner, by accident, without actually excavating illegally, comes upon an archaeological object on his land, it is, by virtue of our Constitution, his object. It was on his land.
Is this the owner?
Yes, the owner.
But if somebody else trespasses on his land they could find it.
The owner would have a claim. It belongs to the owner of the land as I understand it, subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court case. All of this area will be clarified.
I accept that this will be clarified in a particular case in the Supreme Court but to me it seems unsatisfactory. Here we are dealing with a very important Bill — The National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986, which is updating the law. We are aware of problems with regard to the Derrynaflan Chalice and the matters which were discussed here last week. I personally think it is not good enough to say we are awaiting a decision of the Supreme Court.
We are in a very strong position now to amend the legislation to take care of this situation and it is wrong to await the decision of the Supreme Court. Indeed, this is a very appropriate time when we have this Bill in front of us, to do so.
It is shirking responsibility and it is not meeting the problems head on if we are to leave it. By the time this is decided in the Supreme Court, I presume this Bill will have gone through both Houses. Now is the time to deal with that problem.
My instant reaction is to agree with the Senator fully. In fact, I have questioned the commissioners as to why we cannot take it on board as we have this legislation in this House and shortly to go before the Dáil, it would appear to be opportune to take on board an amendment to resolve this problem but it would, in effect, be anticipating the outcome of the Supreme Court case which in itself could be dangerous and could lead us into problems. In fact, I deal with this to some extent again under amendment No. 69 which we have not yet reached where I say that the definition of archaeological objects under the National Monuments Acts excludes treasure trove. The present position in relation to archaeological objects is that they are the property of the landowner on whose property they are found. I am hoping, I will go on to say, that the Supreme Court will clarify the question of treasure trove in the future. Consequently I am not in a position to introduce amending legislation in this area much as I would love to. I take the Senator's point that it would appear to be the appropriate vehicle but we are in this rather difficult area of anticipating the outcome of the Supreme Court decision and I am advised by the commissioners that it would not be correct to do so.
May I make one very brief comment on that? It seems to me that even if the Supreme Court take a certain line by reason of the legislation that we have, that is no reason why we should be compelled to adopt the same line. We are actually enacting this legislation and I do not think that, apart from constitutional matters which would arise, simply on the question of the law there is any problem in dealing with this irrespective of what the outcome of the Supreme Court may be. Perhaps the Minister would look again at that.
Generally, I am being advised that the whole area of whether there is a concept of treasure trove or whether that exists will be clarified by the Supreme Court decision. I take the Senator's point. He is saying: "Why wait for that? Why not let us define what we mean as treasure trove and act accordingly?" I am advised that, given our constitutional requirements in relation to private property and so on, we are into an area of paying compensation and it could be a very big area. However, I am not fully satisfied, as I stand talking to the Senator now, in relation to this area. Without guaranteeing anything, I shall refer to it again on Report Stage. I do not want to be dishonest and give the impression that I am likely to take the amendment on board or anything. Maybe we could refer to it later, leave it as unfinished business and come back to it at that stage.
I have some sympathy with the viewpoints expressed and the Minister, of course, is wrestling with how to handle it at this juncture. It seems difficult enough to understand how artefacts of the greatest value, buried underground in a previous age, can be the subject matter of legal proceedings in regard to ownership. Is it not the case that all artefacts and monuments form a part of our common heritage and the law should, therefore, be clear on the question of ownership and access? Now I know that that will be clarified for us by the Supreme Court decision. Presumably some legislative action will be necessary on receipt of the Supreme Court decision.
Depending on the outcome.
I would have thought that the treasures and monuments of the past are the heritage of the whole of Ireland and not the property of any one individual. Maybe that is one further reason why we need to await the Supreme Court decision.
One of the reasons archaeological objects and artefacts have been removed from historic sites in the past is that there appears to be a ready market for such objects and artefacts. If the sale and purchase of such artefacts were prohibited, certainly part of the incentive if not all the incentive would be removed.
I am not in a position to accept the amendment as it now stands. Perhaps we could come back to it on Report Stage. Generally there is an opinion that we cannot revise a law until we know what the law is and we do not really know what the law is until we have the outcome of the Supreme Court decision.
I am satisfied if the Minister will examine this matter again before Report Stage. The Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, gave the impression last week that a constitutional referendum might be necessary in this regard. If we enacted legislation which dealt with this very important part of our heritage, artefacts and items which are buried, if a law were enacted which clearly stated that such objects belonged to the State, if necessary then I am sure that could be the subject of a constitutional referendum.
I do not disagree. I regret that this opportunity cannot be used to clarify one way or another this most important area but we will talk about it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 52:
In page 12, lines 31 and 32, to delete subsection (11).
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Section 5 is concerned with monuments and archaeological areas entered in the register. It is concerned that these should enjoy protection. On a point of clarification, obviously over the past few years we are all aware that a number of cases have occurred in which national monuments have been demolished with heavy machinery, most recently in Kilcullen, County Kildare. It appears on the surface that those responsible for such acts act with apparent immunity before the law. Does section 5, as now before us, ensure adequate safeguards against that type of action?
The Senator will be aware that we are increasing the penalties substantially in relation to that. The penalties are really a measure of our seriousness in relation to this area and I think when we get to the penalties section the Senator will see that we have amended our original proposals to ensure that the public are left under no illusion as to how seriously as a nation and as a Parliament we treat the desecration of our heritage. The gardaí are investigating the case referred to in Kilcullen and as far as I am concerned the full rigours of the law will apply in that case if only for exemplary reasons because, as the fines now stand, they are not punitive in themselves. There is quite a lot of punishment in relation to an exemplary case such as this and I am extremely annoyed and disturbed about that particular case.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 13, lines 12 to 16, to delete subsection (5).
This section deals with the acquisition of national monuments etc., by the Commissioners. This subsection is as follows:
The Commissioners shall not acquire under this section without the consent of the Irish Land Commission any property on or forming part of land subject to a land purchase annuity or the subject of a land purchase agreement or vested or in the course of being vested in the Irish Land Commission.
The first point I want to make — and I do not think it is a very substantial one — that is, I thought the Irish Land Commission were being abolished. We had some debate in this House a few years ago and I thought the intention was to abolish the Irish Land Commission. As they are continuing on in some kind of lame way, it seems to me to be wrong that the Irish Land Commission should have any special power with regard to this section dealing with the acquisition of sites. It seems to me that it would be unlikely that there would be any dispute and that the Land Commission would give their consent but perhaps it is a technicality. Nevertheless, I do not see why the Irish Land Commission should have any particular power or that the Bill should exclude the Irish Land Commission from obligations which other land owners would have to fulfil. For that reason I think the subsection should be omitted.
This is a normal provision and a repeat of a provision in the 1930 Act. No difficulty is envisaged in obtaining the consent of the Irish Land Commission to proposals for acquisition of lands comprising or adjacent to a national monument. I see no need for this amendment. The provision will remain necessary as long as the Irish Land Commission still have legal existence.
I take it the Land Commission would never be in a position to veto any acquisition under this section.
It has never happened and the Act has been in existence for many years. I think we can assume that for the rest of the life of the Land Commission.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.