Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Jul 1987

Vol. 116 No. 17

National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986: [Seanad Bill Amended by the Dáil]: Report and Final Stages.

An Cathaoirleach

This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 82, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purport of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matter, therefore, that may be discussed is the amendments made by the Dáil.

For the convenience of Senators I have arranged for the printing and circulation to them of these amendments.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration".

An Cathaoirleach

As Members are aware, they may speak only once on this question.

Mr. Manning

I am slightly confused as to the procedures. I understood that the Minister would explain to us the reasons for the changes made, rather than that we be simply rubber stamped it.

An Cathaoirleach

You are right. As I have said the amendments passed by the Dáil to our Bill will be explained to the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. N. Treacy)

Is cúis áthais dom freastal ar an Seanad um thráthnóna.

It is with a sense of satisfaction that I am able to report to this House that Dáil Éireann passed the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986, on 24 June 1987 with the small number of amendments, eight in all, which you have before you. It is a tribute to the thoroughness with which this Bill was debated in this House that the Dáil was able to dispose of it in two sittings. While, inevitably, voices were raised on the one hand to suggest that certain measures in this Bill did not go far enough, and, on the other hand, others felt that it went too far in some respects, there was in general overwhelming support for this Bill.

Turning now to the actual amendments made by the Dáil, it will be noted that the first three amendments simply reflect changes in ministerial functions introduced by the present Government following the establishment of the Department of the Marine and the assignment of certain functions, formerly discharged by the Minister for Communications, to the Minister for the Marine.

The fourth amendment made by the Dáil replaces the former section 15 passed by this House with a new section 15. The new section does two things which the former section did not do. First it gives the National Museum a right not only to inspect, examine or photograph an archaeological find which has been reported but additionally, to take possession of it for a period of up to six weeks after which it must then be returned to the person who had possession of it. There are many archaeological objects that cannot be properly examined other than by allowing the experts to be able to examine them over a sufficient period. The second thing which the new section does is to oblige the Garda Síochána to pass on any reports of finds received by them to the National Museum without undue delay. The remaining four amendments which are in fact new sections give the Bill some extra legal "teeth" which on reflection it was found to lack.

The fifth amendment relating to the withholding of information arises from the fact that the powers of the Garda Síochána in regard to offences connected with archaeological objects are inadequate in present day circumstances. This new section will allow the Garda in cases of suspected offences involving archaeological objects to demand relevant information and makes it an offence to withhold such information. But there are safeguards. A garda must have grounds for suspicion. He must state what the penalty for non-compliance with his request is, and any information received cannot be used in connection with an offence prosecuted under any other legal provisions.

With regard to amendment No. 6, the Garda authorities pointed out that to enforce the provisions of the Bill successfully, they should be empowered to demand names and addresses of suspected offenders and, where such persons fail or refuse to give their names and addresses or give false or fictitious names or addresses, that the Garda be empowered to arrest the offenders. Apart from section 3 (6) of the Bill and section 23 (1) of the Principal Act, as amended, there is no specific power to demand names and addresses under the sections that create offences, that is sections 2 (5), 3 (7) and 18 (2). This amendment remedies this defect.

Amendment No. 7 arises from a joint request from the National Museum and the National Monuments Advisory Council that powers to search for and seize archaeological objects illicitly excavated, or unreported when found, or in course of being exported without licence, should be given to the Garda Síochána and customs officers. It was found on examination that the customs officers already have the necessary powers. The present amendment confers on the Garda Síochána the necessary powers to cope with such cases. The procedure is made subject to the obtaining of a warrant from the District Court, a step which will ensure that searches and seizures of evidence are conducted with due regard to the rights of the individual.

Amendment No. 8 is consequential on the previous three amendments. This new subsection in section 20 of the Bill as passed by the Seanad, now section 23 (2) of the Bill, provides for fines of up to £1,000 or three months' imprisonment, or both, in cases of: (a) withholding information; (b) failure to give name and address; or (c) obstruction of gardaí as provided for in the three sections already referred to.

I must also mention a mistake in section 16 of the Bill as printed which will be corrected in the final printing. In line 11 of page 17, the figure 1 in brackets should of course be the figure 2 in brackets.

Members of this House will be aware from the newspapers of the growing urgency for adequate legislation in the areas of our built heritage and our archaeological heritage. Even those sites which have escaped attention down the centuries and the millennia by reason of being under water are now under threat.

I would like to mention in particular the wrecks of Armada vessels at Streedagh, County Sligo. A group of English divers reported finding three such wrecks in 1985 and they raised three brass cannon from one of the vessels which has been tentatively identified as the Juliana. These cannon were handed over to the Receiver of Wrecks and they are now in the Office of Public Works, National Monuments Depot at Dromahair, County Leitrim.

In view of the importance of this find and of the need to preserve it until it can be investigated under the guidance of professional archaeologists, the Commissioners of Public Works placed a preservation order on the site in accordance with the provisions of the National Monuments Act, 1930. Discussions took place with the divers in the hope of reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement but before these discussions were completed the divers decided to challenge the preservation order in the High Court. This case was heard last week and the preservation order was quashed. However, the State still claims ownership of the wreck.

The Bill now before us includes, for the first time, specific provisions to deal with underwater archaeology. Section 3 provides that where the Commissioners of Public Works are satisfied that an area of the seabed of the territorial waters of the State may prove to be the site of a wreck of historical, archaeological or artistic importance, they may make an underwater heritage order. Such an order will make it an offence for anyone to tamper with any part of the wreck or to dive on the wreck for the purpose of exploring or salvaging the wreck without a licence from the commissioners. The maximum penalty for an offence of this nature is a fine of £50,000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both fine and imprisonment. This provision will rectify the deficiency which has been found in the existing legislation.

Underwater archaeology is a relatively new branch of the science and it is vital that we protect our important under water sites from exploration. It would be irresponsible to allow salvage to take place until the requisite archaeological expertise is available and until adequate conservation facilities have been provided.

I would like to conclude by recommending all the amendments which have been listed to the House. I believe that these amendments, which strengthen the Bill, are in accord with the general views expressed in the debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Manning

We on this side of the House have no difficulty in supporting, indeed we welcome, the amendments reported back here from the Dáil. We believe they will strengthen a good Bill which began its life in this House.

There are two points I would like to make about the amendments brought back by the Minister. I believe there was a time when a National Monuments Bill could be expected to remain in existence unchanged virtually for as long as the monuments it set out to protect. That is no longer the case, largely because of the growth in both underwater and over-water technology in the finding out of wrecks and treasures. Therefore, I urge the Minister and his Department that this legislation and its effectiveness should be kept constantly under review to ensure that if there are further improvements in technology which make treasures of whatever sort, underland or undersea, more vulnerable, as far as possible the State should update its own capacity to deal with the people concerned.

Secondly, the Minister in referring to the sections mentioned fines of £1,000 for withholding information and £50,000 and 12 months' imprisonment for those involved in more serious offences. Again, because of the decline in the value of money in a certain length of time, these fines may not prove to be adequate. Therefore, I ask the Minister to keep these two sections of the amendments he has brought back under constant review. However, we welcome the strengthened Bill.

Professor Eogan

I congratulate the Minister on the speedy passage of the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1987, through the Dáil and the prompt manner in which it has been taken before this House. I congratulate the Minister further on the commitment he has shown already to the preservation and maintenance of our national monuments. I wish him all the best and I hope he will find this part of his responsibility both rewarding and fulfilling.

I welcome these amendments, as they give a certain strength in an area which needed some strengthening. The two sections I am particularly interested in and am glad to see strengthened are sections 15 and 20. The important point about the amendment of section 15 is that it enables the National Museum and various other authorities to build up a much fuller record of the find, whatever it may be. It is also important that if these finds are reported to the Garda, and only to the Garda, this information is then passed on to the National Museum. I am glad this is included in the amended section. There is no point in fulfilling the law and reporting the finding of an object at a Garda station, wherever it may be, if that information then just sits tight in a file and does not move on to where it should move, in other words, to the National Museum where a proper documentary record on the object can be built up.

One section of the amendment to section 20 is somewhat similar. It is likewise important and gives greater teeth to the Bill. The part of this amendment that is to some extent complementary to section 15 again involves the information aspect about the artefact. It is vitally important that full information should be available. If this information is being withheld or kept back, the object itself will not have the same importance, certainly not the same scientific value as it would have if we had all the documentation on it. Therefore, I am pleased that this section concerning this whole problem of withholding information is inserted. We must have information not only about the type of the object, but precisely where it was found, when it was found and the circumstances of discovery.

That leads on to the next part of that section. It is vital and important to have inserted this amended section which gives powers of search and seizure to the Garda which already exist for the custom officers. Unfortunately, over the past number of years new rather sinister elements have emerged with regard to the destruction of our archaeological inheritance. It was bad enough to have bulldozers operating on archaeological sites, to have metal detector operators digging into them and to have people plundering the underwater archaeology but as part of this whole destructive element what seems to be a whole sales network is now being established. It is impossible to get information about it. There seems to be a great deal of secrecy about it. One hears about enormous sums of money being offered for objects. There was an article in the papers recently about some object that was discovered and sums as high as £2 million have been bandied around which seems extraordinary.

It appears that an organised network is coming into existence which, as I said, has an even more sinister element. As far as one can judge a sort of a Mafia is now emerging. Quite a lot of very important objects may be lying around in sheds, may be sitting on somebody's mantelpiece or may be hidden away in bank vaults. We do not know where they are but if this is the case there is one thing we can be certain about and that is they are not being kept in the proper environmental condition in which these important objects should be kept. Furthermore, it has been reported, at least in archaeological gossip, that the people who are involved in these dealings are involved from the money point of view only, and as a result, important objects are being destroyed because they have not got the same monetary value. This is an exceedingly serious problem. It means that only the glamorous objects will be recovered because they have a sale value. The very important everyday objects, knives, tools and ordinary brooches, very important works of craftsmanship in their own right, can be neglected and destroyed because they have not got the hundreds of thousands pounds worth of value of some of the other objects.

In view of the way things have been developing, especially recently, it is vital that the Garda should have the power of search and seizure. By giving them that power it may not totally eliminate these Mafia-type operations that are going on but at least it may help to restrict them and I hope, before too long, eliminate them altogether.

I welcome the amendments, as I welcome the Bill and I trust that the provisions of the Bill will be hastily implemented. There is no point in giving powers of search and seizure to the Garda, or in giving certain powers to the Commissioners of Public Works or to the Director or the authorities of the National Museum if they are not going to be implemented. I trust the Minister will ensure that the provisions of this Bill are speedily implemented in a businesslike manner and not left sitting high on shelves or hidden away in files. A businesslike implementation of these provisions must be got underway as quickly as possible and if this requires some further resources I hope they will be provided. The destroyers of our archaeological inheritance seem to be able to acquire the resources to carry out their plunder and destruction. I trust the State will likewise show the initiative, but of a different sort and the right sort, in looking after our archaeological inheritance.

Professor Murphy

I support Senator Eogan's expert observations and echo his support for the amendment. I want to make one or two brief comments, keeping my remarks to the amendment. You will forgive me, a Chathaoirligh, if I raise something which has already been aired and decided but I was not present when the Bill was originally discussed in the House through a regrettable oversight of my electors which has been since happily rectified.

Mr. Mooney

Self-praise is no praise.

Professor Murphy

A sense of humour is not entirely out of place, I hope, even on such a serious matter.

Section 15 places a new obligation on our citizens. The Bill is strengthened by this section, and rightly so, as Professor Eogan has said but it could put the ordinary citizen into an awkward situation through no ill-will of his own. To be fair and despite all the sensational reports of the destruction of much of our heritage — many of them are justified — it is also true that a surprising number of ordinary citizens — farmers for example — are very conscientious in reporting archaeological finds. At least that has been the experience of the Archaeological Department of University College, Cork. When we talk about the pirates and those who loot our archaeological material we must remember that many of our citizens have a sense of responsibility.

My question to the Minister is whether citizens will be informed of the additional obligation on them. How will the ordinary citizen know that he has an obligation to report a find to the Garda? How is he going to know that what he has found is an archaeological object? It seems this calls for some kind of publicity campaign. I see no reason why we should not undertake some kind of campaign to bring to the attention of our people the importance of our archaeological heritage and, at the same time, remind them that the legislation now has very effective teeth. I am concerned about how this information is going to be transmitted to our citizens.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I welcome these amendments. As one who had a particular interest in the Bill when it was debated previously I think the amendments strengthen it. The fact that there are so few amendments is a tribute to the way the Bill was discussed when it came before the Seanad.

I would like to join with Senator Eogan in his remarks. While I very much regret the approach being taken to our treasures I am sure that Senator Eogan will agree with me that in the past few years there has been a great awareness by many people of our archaeological heritage and this is to be welcomed. There is a limit to what legislation can do. I welcome in section 15 the involvement of the Director of the National Museum.

As Senator Murphy said, a problem arises when a find is not reported within four days and the individual is in some dilemma because a serious offence has been committed which warrants a heavy fine and a period in prison. There might be a tendency when an object is found and not reported on time — four days can pass fairly fast — that it would not be recorded. I hope that this will not be a problem, but it could be and I hope the Minister would look into the matter to see if there is some means of dealing with the problem.

Mr. Ferris

I want to say a few words about this Bill. It got a most excellent debate in the Seanad when it was initiated here. The first three or four amendments are technical, changing the name of the Minister with responsibility. I come from the constituency where there is still a controversy about the finding of the Derrynaflan Chalice. I hope this legislation will help to redress the problems that have arisen from this and other finds.

There is an acceptance by all sides of the House that all these treasures found on land or under the seas belong to the State, and we want to treat them as treasure trove, as the property of the State. Any assistance the Minister might need by way of legislation in achieving that ideal he will get from all sides of the House.

The new section 15, which has been referred to by Senator Murphy and Senator Fitzsimons, is fairly strongly worded. It applies to people who deliberately and knowingly withhold information about treasure trove either from the Garda Síochána or the Director of the National Museum. We would expect such a find to be reported without delay. There will be people prosecuted under this section who found something but who are unaware of its national significance or importance. Section 15 reads:

Section 23 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsections for subsection (1):

"(1) A person who finds an archaeological object shall, within 4 days after the finding, make a report of it to a member of the Garda Síochána on duty in the district in which the object was found or the Director of the National Museum or a servant or agent of his and shall when making the report state his own name and address, the nature or character of the said object and the time and the place at which and the circumstances in which it was found, 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 the report (if any), give to any member of the Garda Síochána or the said Director or a servant or agent of his on request any information within his knowledge in relation to the object of the finding thereof and shall permit —

(a) any member of the Garda Síochána or the said Director or servant or agent of his to inspect, examine or photograph the object, and..."

Another subsection gives the Garda Síochána power to remove the object, after taking a photograph of it, and after six weeks, yet another subsection requires the director to hand it back.

The Minister obviously got legal advice in discussions with various interested agencies, that this is the correct way to deal with the matter, but I would have thought that if an object of significance had been discovered people would be required to give notice of it, and to surrender it to the nation, which is the purpose of this amendment. All of us would welcome that. Under what circumstances should it be returned to the finder? This begs the question why there was any reluctance on the part of the finder to either report or surrender it. Is it because — and this has been contended in court — the State in its wisdom is mean in the way it treats people who find valuable objects, either accidentally or deliberately? Because of the strides being made in technology objects which it was thought had been lost forever, can now be recorded. If this practice continues, and from what we read it is still going on, the State will have to address the problem of compensation so that people will have the incentive to surrender the objects found as quickly as possible. Naturally there would be a certain amount of honour and glory in doing so. At the moment there does not seem to be an incentive to do that because the State has acted in a very mean way with the finders. This was so in the case of the person in my constituency. Everybody who followed that court case was amazed at the findings of the court. There seemed to be no doubt in anybody's mind that these objects were the property of the State and nobody dreamt there would be any other obligation but to hand them over. We should address this problem and I hope the Minister will look at the area of compensation or reward. This might overcome some of the problems that have arisen as a result of these magnificent finds which have been made over the past number of years. These finds are magnificent as those of us who have been privileged to see them on display in Dublin and in Cahir Castle, where the Derrynaflan Chalice was later exhibited, can attest. The magnificance of these objects cannot be overstated and that puts a tremendous responsibility on all of us to ensure that the public are given an incentive by way of reward to surrender the objects, and not deliberately hold on to them.

I am concerned about people who might unknowingly find something and are unaware that it is treasure and might keep it a little longer than four days. Perhaps the Minister will say why a period of four days was recommended. As Senator Manning said, these heavy fines might be a disincentive to hold on to such finds. These are some of the largest fines I have seen documented in legislation, and appropriately so. Other experts in this field have indicated the importance of treasure trove. I am concerned that there be a bit of give and take in these matters. If there was more give by the State, there might be less take by the State, because finders would give voluntarily.

Mr. Mooney

Like the other Senators, I welcome the Bill. The day when foreigners can come in and by stealth, and bribery in some cases, remove our archaeological heritage is now over. Anybody who has a consciousness about history and the identity of this country as a separate culture will welcome the Bill. I am sure it will come as a surprise to learn that our customs officers already have the legal power to search for and seize artefacts of worth illicitly excavated. Indeed, that came as a surprise to me and, I see from the Minister's speech that it was also a surprise to his Department. How many such artefacts have passed out of this country, through perhaps lack of knowledge by those at our ports as to the value of these objects? People employed at airports and seaports should keep their eyes open for any such objects that they believe are being transported illegally out of the State. It is the duty of all our citizens to protect our national treasures. In this context I would also like to take up the theme of Senator Eogan and hope that where artefacts are discovered any doubt as to their value should be immediately clarified with those who have the expertise.

The suggestion also by Senator Hogan that items of national treasure are hidden leads me to take up the plea from local interests in my own area — I know there are echoes in many other areas — to the National Museum to locally funded treasures to remain within the locality. I understood that much of our archaeological heritage is locked up out of sight of our citizens and visitors alike, mainly as a result of lack of proper space at the National Museum and at national level. There are local heritage centres willing and able to house at least some of these national treasures and they should be supported in that context. We, in my own town of Drumshanbo, are awaiting with bated breath the results of the international fund as to whether they will finance an interpretive inheritance centre in our area and I hope at the end of the month we will have good news.

In another context I am pleased that the brass cannon recovered from the wreck of the Spanish Armada ship, the Juliana, is now with the office of Public Works in Leitrim. I hope that the case arising out of the discovery and excavation of the Juliana by a group of foreign divers will be resolved in the State's interest. I wonder if there is any other country in the developed world who would allow such activities to go unchallenged.

While I am not sure about the retrospective effects of the Bill before the House, this fear was expressed recently by a representative of the group operating at Streedagh. Perhaps the Minister might clarify if the Bill or its elements affecting illegal excavations are retrospective because it would stop the type of activity going on off our shores with increasing regularity. I hope this superb find at Streedagh will ultimately be put at the disposal of the State. There should be an attempt to refloat the Juliana if at all possible or at least to rebuild parts of it and an Armada exhibition centre could be located at Streedagh or in the Sligo area, in much the same way as the wreck of the English Mary Rose is now attracting hundreds of thousands of people to Portsmouth. Naturally, like all the speakers in the House who are concerned about the protection of our national treasure I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill.

Mr. Lanigan

I will not delay the passage of this Bill as it got a reasonable airing in this House most of the necessary points were made. One of the problems with which we have been confronted over the past number of years is when the major auction houses, particularly from Great Britain, take the artefacts from the big houses or establishments such as the old colleges and monasteries which are being broken up. Items which may not seem to be of major value are often sold and exported and there is not enough control over this type of operation.

Amendment No. 7 talks about illicitly excavating materials. When I was building an extension to my own house we found artefacts of historical value because the house was built on the site of an old church, the commemoration plaque of which we found and mounted on the wall surrounding my house. I am not too sure whether it was illicitly excavated but luckily the bulldozer or shovel did not break the plaque. However, these items are of historical value and they could very easily have been lost.

Recently in Kilkenny a painting came up for sale at a major auction. Sothebys of London decided that the auction value of this painting was about £25,000. It eventually made £200,000 in London and is now in Australia at a valuation of about £750,000. That painting may not have been of any particular value in terms of an Irish archaeological or historical point of view but, nevertheless, the item went out of Ireland and it is of major historical value in the art world. If something is found in one of the old Irish houses at present and comes up for auction it may have been in that house for a number of years. If this item is of major archaeological or historical value can it be prevented from leaving the country? Excavations may not have been illicit but objects should not be removed from the jurisdiction.

On the question of the Sligo finds recently in Streedagh, I was listening to a gentleman on the radio this morning suggesting that the case taken against the Government on this item was a preventive one to ensure that they would have some control over where the items would go if this Bill went through and that there might be a retrospective element in it. He said that even if the object found was treasure trove he would be entitled to 80 per cent and that the State would be entitled to 20 per cent. I do not think anybody should be allowed to bargain with the Government regarding Irish treasures. Irish legislation should dictate what, if anything, he should get from the find. Licences should be issued to anybody working in the Irish Sea. If you go fishing in the Irish Sea you must have a licence and you cannot fish in certain waters for certain fish at certain times of the year. Why should people just because they have diving gear, be allowed into the Irish Sea, to take up treasure belonging to this country and decide that they are willing to negotiate with the State on its valuation?

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. N. Treacy)

I sincerely thank the various Senators who made a contribution to the final Stages of this Bill. It is indicative of the interest in this House and the contribution made by the House to the Bill initially that so many people are prepared at this hour of night, in the middle of summer to make their observations and to ask questions on the Final Stages of a very important Bill.

Senator Manning expressed the view that the legislation should be kept under constant review. In my introductory speech in the Dáil on the Bill, I made it quite clear that I viewed this amending Bill as simply a temporary measure. I hope that before long when the case at present before the Supreme Court has been decided I will be in a position to come back to this House and to the Dáil with more comprehensive legislation. It is my feeling, that of my Department and of the Taoiseach and the Government that this Bill is of great importance as indeed is the whole area of our national monuments, archaeology and heritage. However, bearing in mind modern technology, pressures, options and considerations, we must keep a very close watch on everything to do with archaeology, heritage and monuments. We would hope to update legislation in this respect in the not too distant future.

I listened with great interest to what Senator George Eogan had to say. I sincerely thank him for his kind words. I was very pleased that he welcomed the Bill. As he has stated, the amendment will strengthen its provisions. I am delighted to have been in the House for Senator Eogan's contribution. Indeed his narration to this House was an acknowledgment by the Taoiseach of the great contribution he has made to archaeology in this country. I wish him well here. I know that he will make a great contribution along with his fellow nominees as well as that fine body of members who have been elected to this Seanad.

I entirely agree with Senator John Murphy's suggestion that there is a need to bring the provisions of the National Monuments legislation to the notice of the public at large. Many monuments are in very remote parts of the country and I fully accept that, without the support of the public, it will not be possible to protect these monuments. I propose to ask the officials in my Department to prepare a publicity programme so that the provisions of this Bill can be explained to the public so that they can fully understand the importance of our heritage and archaeology and the consequences of violating either.

Senator Ferris raised the question of the State claiming ownership of archaeological objects. Until the Derrynaflan case is out of the way we will not know precisely what are the rights of the State. We cannot therefore amend the law to make appropriate provision to allow the State to claim such objects, subject perhaps to the payment of compensation. Senator Ferris also raised the question of the four day notice. As far back as 1930 the Dáil decided that a 14 day period for reporting finds was necessary. However, with the speed of communication, the way technology has advanced since the National Monuments Act, 1930 was enacted we are much more conscious now of the deterioration which can take place in the case of artefacts which remain untreated for a long or even short period of time. In order to overcome that difficulty we have proposed this four day time limit. The four day time limit is a reflection of the speed of communication, the changes therein and the effects of modern life on untreated excavated artefacts. I want to assure the House that our people, or anybody finding artefacts or such objects who find themselves innocently outside the time limit need have no fears of difficulties with the law.

Senator Mooney raise the Streedagh situation. I do not want to make much comment on that situation, pending the passage of this Bill. On its enactment my Department will be taking appropriate measures and action to ensure that we protect all our archaeological sites and heritage be they over water, under water, on land or wherever. Usually law cannot be retrospective, whatever about its provisions being retroactive. We will just have to await the passage of this Bill when we will take the appropriate measures to protect archaeological finds in Streedagh and elsewhere.

Senator Eogan also asked that we deal with the provisions of the Bill in a businesslike fashion, that they be implemented quickly. I want to assure the House that, as soon as this Bill is passed and becomes law we will proceed in speed and haste — in a positive programmed manner — to implement all of its provisions to protect our heritage and archaeological sites and to ensure that those artefacts representative of our past are preserved for future generations and for the State.

The Leader of the House, Senator Lanigan, raised the point of important objects coming up for sale at auction houses and at various public sales, often being sold for small amounts of money — somebody picking them up and reselling them beyond our shores in Britain, the Continent or elsewhere. I am not too sure what can be done about this. I think the National Museum has some part to play. The law was strengthened somewhat in this regard over the last few years. It is not something with which the provisions of this Bill can deal. It is something in which I personally — both by way of my former profession and present task — would have a major interest. It is something that I will be taking up with my Department, making suggestions either to them or to other relevant Departments in order to ensure that we can devise or draft some legislation to protect what is the rightful property of our country and State.

I want to thank sincerely all Senators who contributed. I want to thank Senator Fitzsimons also, a man who has a great regard for our heritage and culture. I want to pay a tribute to Seanad Éireann for the detailed, dedicated and positive manner in which they dealt with this Bill initially. It has rendered my task, as the Minister dealing with it, much easier and indeed also that of my officials. The fact that the Bill was initiated in the Seanad, that we have come back here again in the midst of summer to conclude its debate in the Seanad is a tribute to Seanad Éireann, to its functions, its membership. I compliment the Seanad and its members on their dedication to their duties and on the great contribution they have made to this important Bill which I commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Question: "That the Bill do now pass" put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We have come to the conclusion of the items ordered for today's business. When is it proposed that the House will sit again?

Mr. Lanigan

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.