National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 25, after "date", to insert "and for such area".
We have already debated this section in great detail. While I am still not convinced about the datum-line of 1700 A.D. that is beyond issue now and we have to accept it. It might be desirable to include a certain area to a later date. The procedure under this subsection seems to be rather cumbersome in its present form. This amendment would enable the Minister to deal with specific areas whether townlands, parishes, electoral areas or counties. In general while I would feel that an updating is always desirable, it might not be possible at certain times for different reasons. This amendment would give the Minister more flexibility in such circumstances.
The effect of this amendment would be to allow the Minister for Finance to make an order providing that all monuments in existence prior to a particular date later than 1700 A.D. in a particular part of the country are historic monuments. It is not desirable to create a situation where the criteria for determining which monuments qualify for protection under these Acts could vary from one area to another. While all monuments earlier than the prescribed date of 1700 A.D. will be historic monuments, and the Senator will be aware that the Minister may amend that date by regulation if in the future he so desires, they will not be given protection until entered in the register. If it were to be decided some time in the future that, say, all monuments in a given area which were in existence before 1800 A.D. should be afforded protection, the necessary arrangements could be made administratively to have all such monuments recorded and entered in the register. While I understand the reasons behind the Senator's amendment I do not really consider it necessary or believe that it would effectively improve what we are trying to achieve.
It seems to me that because of the financial situation at different times it might not be possible to update it for all of the country. I felt that covering specific areas would give the Minister flexibility and would be in the interests of the historic monuments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 7 are similar and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 27, to delete "historic wreck order" and to substitute "underwater heritage order".
The National Monuments Advisory Council have requested that we use the term "underwater heritage order" instead of "historic wreck order" to make it clear that these orders can apply not merely to historic wrecks but also to sites, possibly in lakes, where archaeological objects are found or are believed to exist and which are, therefore, worthy of protection. I accept the validity of their argument and these amendments make the requisite changes. Indeed the recent discoveries of the book shrine and various other artefacts in lakes underline what we are trying to achieve by these amendments.
It is a very essential amendment.
I agree with Senator Dooge and think the amendments are sensible. The Minister referred to the shrine that was discovered recently. Many people in this House have mentioned the Book of Kells. Many people in my town of Kells feel that is the shrine of the Book of Kells.
Perhaps we will have another opportunity to explore that further.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 3, lines 31 and 32, to delete "historic wreck order" and to substitute "underwater heritage order".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4, 23 and 24 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 4, to delete line 23 and to substitute the following:
"searching for archaeological objects, or
(c) promote, whether by advertising or otherwise, the sale or use of detection devices for the purpose of searching for archaeological objects.".
Amendment No. 4 substitutes for that one proposed by Senator Mullooly and Senator Fitzsimons on Committee Stage. We pointed out that time that we would come back to it. The wording presented by the parliamentary draftsman is slightly different but it achieves the object in view. It will prevent firms who sell metal detectors from using the capacity of these instruments to locate objects of archaeological value as a marketing ploy when advertising, giving sales talks, etc. It will save people from being thus induced to purchase metal detectors in good faith believing that, if advertised for archaeological use, one is in order in using them to look for archaeological objects.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 provide a maximum fine of £1,000 for breach of this provision. Amendment No. 23 excludes it from being an indictable offence. But amendment No. 24 inserts it among summary offences which can incur a fine of up to £1,000.
I am very pleased with these amendments. If there is a promotion in contravention of this paragraph the maximum penalty will be £1,000. Some people might feel this could be higher, but we are in agreement with the amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 5, line 30, after "post", to insert "or delivered by hand to an officer of the Commissioners at the head office of the Commissioners".
Amendments Nos. 5, 9 and 16 are related and may be discussed together.
The first two amendments are in substitution for the Committee Stage amendments proposed by Senator Fitzsimons to facilitate a person who might wish to submit an application immediately for use of a metal detector or for a licence to carry out a diving survey or recovery operations at the site of an historic wreck without waiting for the postal service to effect delivery. The amendments would also cover the situation that would arise in the event of a postal strike. By specifying the person who can accept delivery and the place of delivery we allow the date of delivery to be verified. This is important since the amount of time allowed to the commissioners to decide on applications is limited.
Amendment No. 16 provides that a notification by the commissioners under section 5 (7) to the owner or occupier of a monument or archaeological area may be delivered by hand as well as by registered post. I hope that satisfies Senators.
We are in agreement with those amendments. There is just one small issue in regard to amendment No. 9 which provides for delivery by hand to the head office of the commissioners. I suppose, in normal circumstances, an officer of the commissioners would always be available but an occasion could arise when that would not be the case. Therefore, to deliver it to the premises or the offices is not sufficient. I just want to make that observation.
An officer will always be available at the head office at 51 St. Stephen's Green.
The post does not operate at weekends either.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 6, lines 13 and 14, to delete "a historic wreck order" and to substitute "an underwater heritage order".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 6, lines 16 and 17, to delete "a historic wreck order" and to substitute "an underwater heritage order".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 6, line 17, to delete "thereof" and to substitute "of this subsection".
This is a drafting amendment which does not affect the meaning of the provision in any way.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 8, line 31, after "post", to insert "or delivered by hand to an officer of the Commissioners at the head office of the Commissioners".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, line 35, to delete "within 4 days" and substitute "without delay and in any event not later than seven days".
Amendments Nos. 10, 20 and 21 are related and may be discussed together. Nos. 20 and 21 are alternatives.
I am slightly confused by those because we got another list of amendments this morning and the numbers are different. I hope you will allow me time to get them sorted out. This is an amendment which was spoken about on Committee Stage. I suppose four days, or even a shorter period, would be proper. This was reduced from 14 days under the existing legislation. The penalty here again for contravention of this subsection is £1,000. It might be considered that the change from 14 to four is somewhat drastic. There might be situations where four days would be on the short side. In any event persons finding themselves in this situation would like some time to consider the position, make inquiries and get advice.
I recall that the Minister stated on Committee Stage that this amendment was suggested by the National Monuments Advisory Council. I appreciate that they would have given it a lot of thought. At the same time, having regard to the circumstances I mentioned, I think seven days would be more appropriate. In the section as drafted there is no emphasis on the importance of speed in making the report. The Minister might agree to state specifically that immediate reporting would be desirable, and in those circumstances she might find a happy medium. Seven days would be more appropriate, with emphasis on the importance of reporting immediately, or as soon as possible.
As the Senator points out, I indicated on Committee Stage that the National Monuments Advisory Council recommended that the period for reporting finds, should be four days, and I have accepted their advice.
I would like, at this stage, to sincerely thank the National Monuments Advisory Council for the amount of work they have done in such a short period. I have not made their task easier. They were appointed a few weeks before Christmas and immediately I handed them the entire Bill and volumes of representations from all groups inside this House and outside to get their expert advice and opinion on them. As many Senators will be aware from my replies to different points this morning and, indeed, on Commitee Stage, they have already come back to me with some very worthwhile advice. I extend my sincere thanks to the National Monuments Advisory Council and to my officials who have had to work so hard in relation to this Bill.
The National Monuments Advisory Council recommended that the period for reporting finds should be four days. In today's situation there should be no undue inconvenience for a person to report a significant find of an archaeological object or of a wreck to a Garda station within four days. This short period is particularly important in the case of wrecks. Once an historic wreck is discovered, its position will tend to become known and, while the finder may not intend to do any damage, other persons could avail of the interval between discovery and notification of it to the Garda to remove much valuable material from the site.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 10, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following paragraph:
"(c) a representative of the Minister for the Environment nominated by the Minister for the Environment,".
Amendment No. 11 is necessary to fill an obvious gap in representation on the Historic Monuments Council. The Historic Monuments Council will play an important role in implementing policies of integrated conservation. They will help in the process of making heritage conservation an integral part of the planning process. This is an area which concerns primarily the Department of the Environment. For this reason, it is essential to have a representative of the Minister for the Environment on the council. During the Second Stage and Committee Stage debates, there were plans and proposals for the inclusion of somebody who could represent the local authority interest and involvement in heritage conservation. I am confident that this amendment goes very far towards meeting those wishes. If the Minister for the Environment of the day should so wish, there are many other bodies from which he might choose to select his nominee to sit on the Historic Monuments Council, as will be evident in my reply to amendment No. 12.
My amendment seeks to extend the proposed composition of the Historic Monuments Council to include a representative from the Irish Architectural Archive, by tabling that body as being a body which could nominate a person to participate on the council. Before I pursue the amendment further, it would be proper for me to declare not an interest but a connection because my husband was a founder and was first Chairman of the Irish Architectural Archive. He is not currently on the board, because they have a very democratic system of rotating their members but obviously I have a long established interest in and knowledge of the work of the Irish Architectural Archive.
The reason this amendment is being tabled on Report Stage arises very largely out of the discussion on Committee Stage, in the context of an amendment put forward by Senator Fitzsimons to bring forward the general application of the Bill to 1900 from 1700, to include all monuments up to 1900. In responding to that amendment and in the discussion of it on 16 December 1986 on Committee Stage, the Minister made it clear that the Bill in its implications will extend to buildings post-1700 but not in a blanket way. The relevant passage is in Volume 115, No. 8, where the Minister says at column 1055:
I hope I made myself clear. Quite honestly we are not excluding all post-1700 A.D. buildings. I apologise if I am not clear enough. It could save a lot of cross discussion if I repeated what I said. Post-1700 buildings are not excluded but our protection of these will be selective rather than on a blanket and automatic basis.
It is precisely because of the scope of the Bill in this regard that I was asked to table this amendment. I know the secretary of the Irish Architectural Archive wrote to the Minister making the case for the express inclusion of the Irish Architectural Archive. In that letter the reasons given warrant a positive response from the Seanad and, I hope, from the Minister. The letter was from Dr. Edward McParland. It says:
I am writing on behalf of the board of the Irish Architectural Archive to request that the Archive should be included in the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986, as a body entitled to nominate a member on the Historic Monuments Council along with other bodies as set out in page 10, section 4, subsection (3) (d). The Irish Architectural Archive which was founded in 1976 and is in receipt of a grant-in-aid from the Department of the Taoiseach, and co-operates with other Departments, notably the Office of Public Works and the Department of the Environment, provides for Ireland a service similar to the National Buildings Records operated by governments in the other Member States of the EEC. While our original view of the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986, was that this was largely a matter for archaeologists we feel that amendments put forward during debates in the Senate, and particularly the proposal of Senator Jack Fitzsimons, and the Government Amendment either to change the terminal date of 1700 to 1900 or to extend it to a later period (16 December 1986) brings much of this legislation directly within the ambit of historic buildings with which the Archive is regularly concerned. The board of the Irish Architectural Archive believes this institution has a significant contribution to make in respect of the operations of the Historic Monuments Council and that the chairman of the Archive has a legitimate claim to membership.
I trust that even at this stage you may be able to give this matter your attention.
I would add to the request made in that letter a little clarification of the role of the Irish Architectural Archive. As was made clear in the letter, it was established as a voluntary body that has been in receipt of a grant-in-aid from the Taoiseach's Department and it has worked very closely with the Government Departments mentioned. The Archive deals with any buildings of whatever age. It does not exclude early buildings but it deals with buildings right up to modern buildings of this century. It is a body which is working continuously with post-mediaeval buildings.
In that connection it may be of interest to note that because of its expertise in this area, the Irish Architectural Archive surveyed the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham at the request of the Government. It also surveyed Swords Castle for Dublin County Council and it has advised on the restoration of Newbridge, Donabate. It has also collaborated with local authorities around the country. It has collaborated with Cork city, with Waterford, County Kilkenny, County Kildare, County Monaghan and with Limerick Chamber of Commerce in surveys of historic buildings which are in the jurisdictions of those local authorities. It has an established expertise precisely in the field that is relevant to the work of the Historic Monuments Council. It has carried out work in this area which the members of the board of the archive feel would be of direct relevance to the necessity which the Minister has identified for being selective in post-1700 buildings. On its board the archive has people with architectural and other expertise but it is particularly directed towards surveying and analysing closely a building with a view to precisely the kind of selection the Minister is talking about.
As well as that, and this may be something the Minister is not aware of, the Chairman of the Irish Architectural Archive, Professor Alastair Rowan who is the Professor of Fine Arts in University College, Dublin, is a member of the Scottish body, the equivalent of the Historic Monuments Council to be established under this Bill. Professor Rowan is a member of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland. He is a member, as I understand it, by direct invitation of the Secretary of State for Scotland and, therefore, he personally has an expertise. He happens to be the current chairman of the archive and would be the likely nominee of the archive to the body.
The case made out by the Irish Architectural Archive is a strong one. They have an established expertise in this field. They are very keen to contribute to the work of the council by providing their expertise and by having a nominee on it. I appreciate that having agreed to the various bodies set out in the subsection we are talking of a comparatively large council. There are 14 named bodies who can nominate and these include Government Ministers, the various universities, Bord Fáilte and other bodies. There is the further provision that the Minister may add a further number, not exceeding five, to the council. For an advisory council they will not be an unwieldy body.
If the Irish Architectural Archive were to be added it would mean there would be a maximum number of 20. That does not seem to be an unduly unwieldy body. Therefore, I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the involvement of the Irish Architectural Archive, given that the board have expressed great interest in being permitted to nominate for the purpose of participation, and that she will note the track record and the relevance of the work of the archive to what the Historic Monuments Council will be doing.
I can assure Senator Robinson that I am very familiar with the excellent work done by the Irish Architectural Archive. I have no doubt that their expertise and experience will be of enormous benefit to the Historic Monuments Council and, indeed, the work, I hope, they will achieve in the years to come. The Irish Architectural Archive located at 63 Merrion Square, Dublin were set up as a private foundation by interested persons in 1976 to collect records, whether in the form of pictures, photographs, drawings or written materials, in regard to our architectural heritage and to provide an advisory or consultative service to public bodies and the public generally. They have done very valuable work.
However they are of too recent a date to enshrine permanently in a statute. Moreover, I have had to reject proposals for the inclusion of so many deserving bodies on the council that to accept one at this stage would be less than fair to the rest. For the record I should outline the number of requests I have had from different bodies to be represented. The enormous interest that has been generated both inside and outside this House by individuals and bodies of one kind or another augurs extremely well for the work that the Historic Monuments Council will do for our heritage and for this country generally. I have received suggestions for representation on the council from the following: the General Council of County Councils, the General Council of Committees of Agriculture, a scientist, a civil engineer, An Foras Forbartha, An Taisce, the Historic Tourist Councils Association, the Irish Museums Association, the Irish Museums Trust, the Irish Underwater Council, the Irish Farmers Association, the Heritage Trust, the Irish Georgian Society, Gaeilgeoirí and so on. I have my own list but I am particularly sympathetic to those. I have even resisted the temptation to include them on the council. At the number of 19 we are at what I consider to be the maximum for effective operation. Too large a committee is inversely proportionate to the amount of work they do or the amount of good they achieve. We are reaching a point beyond which we should not go. I am not saying we have all the wisdom in relation to this matter and perhaps the mix we have achieved might not be quite the best but experience will resolve this. We have taken advice and have included all those interests that are truly representative of this most important area.
I would like to point out that of those 19 two are architects. My personal sympathies at present lie with the Irish Underwater Council. Their interests should be represented by the Maritime Institute but the more I learn about the whole area of underwater archaeology, an area I know very little about, and the more I learn about the workings of the Irish Underwater Council and the Maritime Institute the more I feel the specialists in the area of underwater archaeology lie with the Irish Underwater Council rather than with the Maritime Institute. I trust I will be proved wrong. We have an excellent representative in Dr. Maurice Craig and he will liaise and try to resolve any hiccups that might arise initially. I have no doubt the matter will resolve itself in the long term.
While with great regret I cannot accept the Irish Architectural Archive as members of the Historic Monuments Council I hope — indeed I am sure — that in line with the terms under which they were set up in 1976, the utmost cooperation will exist between the archive and the Historic Monuments Council. I have no doubt that the Historic Monuments Council will be approaching them for advice, guidance and help in relation to the very important job they will have to do particularly, as Senator Robinson pointed out, in relation to the inclusion of post-1700 buildings on a basis of architectural merit alone.
I am sorry Senator Fitzsimons, I should have called you earlier.
I want to welcome amendment No. 11. It should have been obvious at the start that a representative of the Minister——
I did not mean it in that way. Because of the importance of the Minister for the Environment in this situation I think the amendment is right and proper and I welcome it. With regard to amendment No. 12, I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept this important amendment in the names of Senators Robinson and Catherine McGuinness. The Minister has a great interest in the architectural area. She left us in no doubt during previous Stages. Section 11 (a), which was introduced as an amendment, gives the definition of a monument as "any artificial or partly artificial building, structure or erection or group of such buildings, structures or erections". I felt that definition was not appropriate in this type of Bill but nevertheless it does indicate the Minister's concern in this area. I know there is a provision for representation by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland but in view of the Minister's special interest and of the importance of this area, I had hoped that the Minister would accede to this amendment. I would ask her to have another look to see if she could accommodate a representative of the Irish Architectural Archive because of the important work they do and having regard to all the reasons set out by Senator Robinson, and in particular the importance of our architectural heritage and the Minister's deep concern in this area.
If I take advantage of your implicit ruling, the discussion is not closed. In fact the Minister did read out a very long list of suggestions that had been made and I would like to refer to a suggestion which I forebore from making on Committee Stage in this regard. On Second Stage I referred to the fact that the Royal Irish Academy had laid the foundation of all the work for the rescue of our heritage in this area. The Royal Irish Academy has the unique distinction of being the meeting place for archaeologists, where people come together and leave behind their institutional allegiances. I found when I read this Bill that all the academic institutions are represented with one vote in order to press their own little sectional interests. There would have been arguments that these institutions, all of whom come together in order to gain consensus in the Royal Irish Academy, might well have been replaced by three representatives from the Royal Irish Academy. The list was getting so long that I forebore from mentioning that. Therefore, I have sympathy with the Minister because this Bill still has to go to the Dáil and one does not know how many such amendments will come before the Dáil. The House should accept the line as drawn by the Minister.
I should like to thank Senator Fitzsimons for his support for this amendment and for his recognition of the relevance of the Irish Architectural Archive to the work of the Historic Monuments Council and in particular to the function of selecting and helping to select the post-1700 buildings which have been included. The Minister clearly recognises the role and the work of the Irish Architectural Archive and I was disappointed, if I understood her, that her reason for not including that body appears to be that it is comparatively recent in its establishment. That seems a very harsh judgment on a body that was set up in 1976 and is making a very significant impact through its own work, through its collaboration with Government Departments and county councils and which is in receipt of a grant-in-aid from the Taoiseach's Department. The Minister made it clear that the council will look to the archive for support and work. That would be established on a better footing if the work of the archive and its relevance were to be recognised by its inclusion in the Bill.
I accept that a number of other bodies are pressing for membership and I agree with the Minister that this is very healthy and a sign that the work of the council is recognised as being important. The role of the archive in recording buildings, in providing the data base from which selections are to be made is particularly relevant. Obviously, I cannot press this amendment any further, given the Minister's attitude towards it, but I would press the relevance of the work of the archive and its members. I do so in the context of there being a possibility of five members of the council being added by the Minister. The Minister has a discretion in that regard. In exercising that discretion I hope that regard will be had to the particular relevance of the archive — more so than a number of the other bodies that the Minister mentioned — to the work of the council. I hope this will be borne in mind.
It may well be that another attempt will be made in the other House to make the case for the institution itself, the Irish Architectural Archive, but I urge the relevance of its ongoing work, its track record in that regard, the extent to which it is used already by Government Departments and by local authorities to carry out that kind of survey and assessment of a building. It should be recognised this is precisely what we are talking about and, therefore, the archive warrants being included expressly or at least having representation through nomination by the Minister.
I find it very hard to disagree with most of what Senator Robinson said in relation to the case she put on behalf of the Irish Architectural Archive. I have an antipathy generally to huge committees of any kind; I think their success is in inversel proportion to their size. I do not disagree in relation to the importance of the Irish Architectural Archive. However, as one of the reasons for their setting up only ten years ago — there are lots of other architectural organisations in existence for a long time and we have also had to say no to them at different stages — was to provide an advisory or consultative service to public bodies and the public generally, we will make great use of them when it comes to their depth of experience in relation to the Historic Monuments Council. I should like to put on record my appreciation of the work they do and I hope we will have this discussion in the other House when this Bill gets through.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 12, lines 8 and 9, to delete "(other than a monument referred to in subsection (6) of this section)".
Senator Fitzsimons proposed an amendment whose effect would be to require the republication in Iris Oifigiúil of all monuments already so published as part of the listing process. While that amendment was not agreed to, it focused attention on the need to notify the owners of monuments already listed when the time comes to enter these monuments in the register. This is necessary because of the stiffer penalties now being introduced for unauthorised or unnotified interference with registered monuments. It is also necessary because of the rate that land is changing hands. Land is no longer going down from father to son or father to daughter; it goes on the market and is sold. Outsiders purchasing a portion of land might not be fully aware of the importance of the heritage attached to that area in terms of field monuments and so on. It is necessary to remind all those people, when they are officially registered of what they are the guardians of in perpetuity. This amendment is also necessary because of the stiffer penalties now being introduced for unauthorised or unnotified interference with registered monuments. This amendment removes the exclusion which would have allowed such owners to go unnotified of entries in the register affecting them.
I appreciate the consideration the Minister has given to this matter. I am in agreement with the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are similar and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 12, line 15, after "notified", to insert "in writing".
I accepted these amendments when proposed by Senator Mullooly on Committee Stage and they are now formally presented. As much business is transacted today by telephone, it is useful in this instance to specify that notices having legal effect be in writing. The first relates to the notification of an owner or occupier of an entry, amendment or deletion in the register and the second to the notification of the Commissioners by an owner or occupier of his or her intention to carry out works affecting a registered monument.
I appreciate that the Minister has agreed to this. It strengthens the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 12, line 23, after "notice", to insert "in writing".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 12, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(9) A notification under subsection (7) of this section shall be sent to the person concerned by registered post or be delivered to him by hand by an officer, servant or agent of the Commissioners.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 12, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(10) A person shall not, otherwise than in accordance with subsection (8) of this section or a consent under section 14 (2) of the Principal Act, demolish or remove wholly or in part or disfigure, deface, alter or in any manner interfere with a historic monument that is entered in the Register.".
Senators Mullooly and Fitzsimons submitted an amendment on Committee Stage which was not accepted in relation to damage by third parties to monuments entered in the register and dealings in archaeological objects removed from such monuments. I then indicated that while the latter aspect could not be dealt with in advance of certain court decisions, the first aspect deserved attention. We have provided in the Bill that where the owner or occupier or any person proposes to carry out or to permit the carrying out of any work at or in relation to a monument or an archaeological area which was in the register, he or she should give notice of his or her intention to the commissioners. The commissioners are allowed two months during which they may decide to place a preservation order on the monument or archaelogical area or to give their consent to the works. The expression "to carry out works" implies some formal operation such as building, land clearance or drainage and it might not cover acts of vandalism or the removal of stone slabs from a monument. The amendment makes it clear that such acts are offences and are subject to the heavy penalties in the Bill.
As the Minister has said, this clarifies the situation. We welcome this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 13, line 43, before "injury", to insert "undue".
This amendment relates to a case where the commissioners or a local authority wish to remove a national monument in their care to a safer place, museum or otherwise. They would be allowed to do so if it can be done without undue injury to it. Senator Fitzsimons, having first-hand knowledge of such a problem in his own area, proposed an amendment to this effect on Committee Stage and I propose to try to meet his wishes. The amendment now proposed makes allowances for the fact that some slight injury is possible in any move but often the balance of advantage will lie in making the move.
I was particularly concerned with this, as the Minister said. This amendment deals with the problem to an extent but I would be happier if there were no restrictions on the commissioners in coming to a decision about moving a monument. I instanced the market cross in Kells, a very important monument. There is deterioration there through weathering, acid rain, frost, abuse and fumes. The local people do not want to see that landmark moved and people who are interested in the preservation of monuments and in our culture realise that this deterioration is taking place. Under this Bill if it becomes law there will be the restriction of "undue injury", and presumably the commissioners will have to come to a decision with regard to the extent of injury that might be entailed in the removal of a monument. In certain situations, even though there might be considerable injury, it would be wrong to tie the hands of the commissioners. Obviously they will get the best advice available; as their priority is the preservation of the monument.
I should like the Minister to let us know if it is the commissioners who will come to a decision about the extent of the injury. To the extent that the amendment makes an attempt to deal with the problem I welcome it but I would be happier if no restrictions were placed on the decisions of the commissioners. The commissioners, because of their special concern and because of the advice they will get, could be prevented in some circumstances from moving a monument and the result would be a more rapid deterioration. To that extent I think this is a weakness in the Bill.
I urge the Senator to accept the section as amended by amendment No. 18. It is about the balance of advantage in relation to protecting our heritage. Let me refer the Senator to the wording of the amended section. Section 7 (1) would read:
Where the Commissioners or a local authority are the owners of a national monument, the Commissioners or the authority (as the case may be) may, if in their opinion they can do so without undue injury to the monument and it is desirable for the protection or preservation of the monument or in the interests of archaeology or for any other reason to do so, and with, in case the authority are the owners of the monument, the consent of the Commissioners, remove the monument or any part of it, and deposit it and keep it deposited in a public museum, or other place, in the State approved of for the time being for the purpose by the Minister.
On reading all of it, the Senator's fears will vanish. There is no undue difficulty in handling any case. The bottom line is that whatever action has to be taken, the balance of advantage must be considered in relation to the monument or the archaeological object or whatever part of our heritage it is applying to at one time. The insertion of the word "undue" before "injury" meets the Senator's fears and I urge him to accept that.
The Minister has read out the subsection but it seems the phrase "or for any other reason to do so" is like a weak line in a strong Keats poem. This gives very wide scope to the commissioners. In the case of an extension to a property or something of that kind, the power is unlimited.
I thought the Senator thought we were being too restrictive all along, that "undue" was not sufficiently liberal to allow local interests to have their say.
I do not think that is a fair comparison. What we are talking about here is the removal of a monument if the experts feel it should be moved. I would like to have that power but solely for the preservation of the monument.
If, for example, a dual carriageway was mooted for Kells — I do not know the size of Kells village — it could be in the interest of the monument that it be moved. That could be "any other reason".
That is introducing something of a broad nature.
That is why we must ensure the preservation of the Office of Public Works, to make sure it does not end up in the Department of the Environment. "Any other reason" could take in many other issues such as that.
My point is it could take in issues which might be of a nature that should not be considered. The reason should be qualified to some extent. Leaving that aside, and our amendment has nothing to do with that phrase, we are dealing with a case where a monument is in danger. The hands of the commissioners are tied with regard to this qualification of "undue". We could bring dictionaries into the House and read out the various meanings of "undue" but in some cases considerable damage might ensue from moving a monument.
With regard to the monument in Kells, I phoned the Office of Public Works some time ago and told the official that if I tried to flake away parts of the stone with my fingers I could do so. The reply of the official was, "Do not attempt to do anything like that" which I would not do. However the stone is flaking and particularly during frosty weather there is a danger to the monument. It would be impossible to move it without some injury to it. If great care is taken and proper expertise is used, it would be a minimum injury but as time goes on this is going to deteriorate further. If nothing is done a stage will come when the moving of the monument will involve more injury than doing it at present. I would prefer that the commissioners would have a free hand to decide that a monument should be moved for its preservation and great care would be taken to ensure that the minimum damage would be done. If the Minister is not prepared to go further there is nothing we can do about it, but I am making the point that it would be a far better Bill if the commissioners were given the power with no restriction whatever.
I take the case the Senator made, that he is concerned that the expression "for any other reason to do so" might open the door too widely. I am advised by my officials that there is no reason to fear as any application for the removal of a national monument will be scrutinised extremely carefully by the Commissioners of Public Works and certainly no fruitless reason will be entertained for same. Basically, no matter what the reason for making the application, consideration will be given to the balance of advantage in relation to the monument and its situation at the time.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
If amendment No. 19 is accepted, amendments Nos. 20 and 21 cannot be moved.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 16, to delete lines 3 to 18 and to substitute the following:
15.—Section 23 (1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by—
(a) the substitution of "4" for "fourteen",
(b) the insertion after "Director of the National Museum" of "or a servant or agent of the said Director", and
(c) the insertion after "said Director", in each place where it occurs, of "or a servant or agent of the said Director",
and the said subsection, as so amended, is set out in the Table to this section.
TABLE
(1) Every person who finds any archaeological object shall, within 4 days after he has found such object, make a report of such finding to a member of the Garda Síochána on duty in the district in which such object was so found or the Director of the National Museum or a servant or agent of the said Director and shall when making such report state his own name and address, the nature or character of the said object and the time and place at which and the circumstances in which it was found by him, and shall also, and whether he has or has not made such report as aforesaid, and irrespective of the person to whom he has made such report (if any) give to any member of the Garda Síochána or to the said Director or a servant or agent of the said Director on request any information within his knowledge in relation to such object or the finding thereof and shall permit any member of the Garda Síochána or the said Director or a servant or agent of the said Director to inspect, examine or photograph such object."
This amendment arises from Committee Stage debate on an amendment to reduce the time for reporting archaeological finds from 14 days to four days. This was to bring it into line with the time scale adopted for the reporting of historic wreck finds. In the course of that discussion, advertence was made to the fact that section 23 of the Principle Act seemed to imply that the director of the National Museum in person would have to inspect, examine and photograph an archaeological find as well as receive reports of such finds and that he could not delegate to a subordinate. These amendments remedy this defect and make it clear that he can delegate these tasks.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 17, line 2, to delete "300" and substitute "1,000".
Section 17 (3) states:
Section 23 (2) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of "a fine not exceeding £300" for "a fine not exceeding ten pounds".
Section 23 (2) of the Principal Act states:
Every person who finds an archaeological object and—
(a) fails without reasonable excuse to make a report of such finding in accordance with this section, or
(b) makes under this section a report of such finding which is to his knowledge false and misleading in any material respect, or
(c) in contravention of this section fails or refuses to give to a member of the Garda Síochána or the Keeper of Irish Antiquities in the National Museum information in relation to such archaeological object or the funding thereof, or
(d) gives to a member of the Garda Síochána or the said Keeper information in relation to such archaeological object or the finding thereof which is to his knowledge false or misleading in a material respect,
shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
I questioned previously the wisdom of having such high penalties. In this case somebody could, for example, discover another important find similar to the Derrynaflan Chalice and could decide not to give information or to withhold information and the fine, according to this Bill, is only £300. Apart from the fact that there is a grave inconsistency here, when one considers the monetary value of such finds a fine of £300 is inadequate. The figure should be increased to £1,000.
I support what Senator Fitzsimons has said in this regard. All of us welcome the very substantial stiffening of the penalties, which were further stiffened by this House on Committee Stage with the addition of imprisonment etc. In the spirit of what the House has done on Committee State with regard to this section, the figure of £1,000 should be supported. I support the amendment.
This relates to the ratio of the fines which may be imposed for failure to report archaeological finds in accordance with section 23 of the National Monuments Act, 1930. It is proposed to raise the £10 limit to £300. However, I am disposed to accept the proposal of Senators Fitzsimons and Mullooly, supported by Professor Dooge, and to have the limit raised to £1,000 which will bring it into line with the level of fine which may be imposed for failure to report an historic wreck found in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Bill. In accepting amendment No. 22 which is the last of the amendments tabled by Senators Mullooly and Fitzsimons, may I say a personal thank you to Senator Mullooly but particularly to Senator Fitzsimons for his interest in the Bill, line by line, section by section, subsection by subsection, and indeed for his obvious interest in this area. I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience of bringing this Bill through the Seanad. I have learned a lot from the interest and the input of the Senators in terms of amendments and discussion. Senators will accept we could not take all their amendments on board but we have come to the end of this most important legislation reasonably pleased with the outcome in relation to both sides. I thank all the Senators who contributed, but particularly Senator Fitzsimons who had a persistent interest from day one in relation to it.
I am overwhelmed by the Minister's gracious words. On this side of the House we greatly appreciated the Minister's interest and consideration of every matter we suggested. I realise the Minister is not very long in this office and that it was a difficult Bill. Previously I expressed my appreciation of the tremendous co-operation we got from the Minister with regard to the Air Pollution Bill. I am most grateful for this. We appreciate what the Minister has done. I thank her for accepting this amendment. I also thank Senator Dooge for his support.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 17, line 44, after "section 2", to insert "(other than an offence consisting of a contravention of subsection (1) (c) *".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 18, line 9, after "section" to insert "2 (being an offence consisting of a contravention of subsection (1) (c)),".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 18, line 13, to delete "An offence" and to substitute "A summary offence".
On Committee Stage indictable offences with fines of up to £50,000 were brought within the scope of this section. Such offences would fall to the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute. It is necessary, therefore, to insert the word "summary" into this subsection to limit the commissioner's powers to prosecute summary offences.
Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration" put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stage today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I wish to thank the House for passing this Bill. It is very important legislation and is greatly improved as a result of the amendments proposed in the House. It is a fine response to the problems which have been hitting the headlines recently. They include the finding of the Derrynaflan Chalice by means of a metal detector; the discovery of armada wrecks off Streedagh in County Sligo; the illicit removal of valuable stone carvings from Clonmacnoise, Carntemple and other sites; the damaging of Bronze Age burials at Kilgowan, County Kildare, in the course of gravel extraction; the discovery of Lord Cloncurry's treasure ship off Wicklow; the finding of the Eighth century Reliquaries in a lake near Granard, County Longford; the list could go on. These events have shown up weaknesses in legal protection afforded to our heritage, even though there were some saving graces. They have also shown up the inadequacies in the penalties to be imposed. I am now confident we are on the way towards not merely mending our fences but towards having one of the best pieces of heritage legislation in Europe. Moreover, the Bill will open the way for us to ratify the convention for the protection of the architectural heritage of Europe. I consider it of the greatest importance, therefore, that the Bill should pursue its way expeditiously through the Dáil.
On Fifth Stage of the Bill, there are a few words that I should like to say. I hasten to assure you that they are concerned with what is in the Bill, as is proper on this Stage. If we look at what is in the Bill as it reaches us on Fifth Stage, the first thing to be noticed is that it is very different from the Bill as initiated. Indeed, we have seen an excellent example of a legislating Chamber at work in this regard. The Minister has already paid tribute to the work of Senator Fitzsimons and I should like to join in that tribute and also to join in Senator Fitzsimons' tribute to the Minister. They have played the leading parts in teasing out what is in this Bill.
Secondly, in effect, the two main provisions in this Bill, the two main thrusts with regard to the use of electronic instruments and undersea wrecks, were part of a Private Members' Bill over five years ago. That Bill was voted down in another place on the grounds that a more comprehensive Bill was required. The lesson of that five year delay should be learned. Indeed, let us hope that neither here nor in another place do we take this attitude in regard to items such as our heritage in which in the passage of time — preparing a comprehensive Bill involves a very long passage of time — monuments that have stood for hundreds of years can suffer irreparable decay. I would say there is that lesson. Equally, whereas I agree with the Minister in hoping this Bill will be dispatched as quickly as possible through the new Dáil when it assembles, I hope the particular timing of this passage will mean that it will actually appear on the Order Paper of the new Dáil There is no reason the Office of Public Works should not immediately start the preparation of comprehensive legislation. This Bill does what is most urgent; it does not do everything. Let us pass the Bill in regard to the most urgent problems that we face but let us not take that as an excuse for leaving the remainder undone for a considerable period of time.
Briefly, I welcome the passage of the Bill and agree that it has been improved substantially on Committee and Report Stages in this House. There is one matter which occurs to me — I hope I am in order in raising it on Fifth Stage — in relation to the title of the Bill. Since the reference is now to underwater heritage, has the Minister considered whether the title should be amended to change the preservation of historic wrecks to the preservation of our underwater heritage. That follows from the amendments made today in relation to section 3.
Point taken. It will be looked after in the right place at the right time.
Question put and agreed to.
