I have arranged for the circulation of the usual list of groupings of the amendments for the information of my colleagues.
An Blascaod Mór National Historic Park Bill, 1989: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to raise a small point. In relation to the name, An Blascaod Mór National Historic Park, would it be preferable if we had the name fully in Irish and fully in English rather than the melange of the two? Perhaps in the other House, or on Report Stage the Taoiseach might consider changing the name to one or the other, or a choice of both rather than a mixture.
I would like to assure the Senator that I wrestled with this for some time and eventually decided on this title. The Irish version of the Bill, of course, will give the title completely in Irish. My thinking was that on the island itself and, indeed, in the interpretative centre on the mainland, the notices would read "An Blascaod Mór" and then "National Historic Park". It should read all right, but I will think again about it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 10, after "Minister," to insert "and after consultation with the Foundation,".
First, I do not want to appear to have been discourteous to the Taoiseach, but neither my watch nor the clock yet records the time as being 10.45 a.m. which is the time we agreed to resume. I regret if the Taoiseach felt that any of us was being discourteous.
In this Bill there is an understandable and reasonable philosophy which is that the State, through the Commissioners of Public Works, should acquire and be responsible for the well-being of An Blascaod Mór but that the Fondúireacht, or the Foundation as it is described in the Bill, would be effectively the sensitisers of what is appropriate, given the unique position An Blascaod Mór occupies in our cultural heritage. Therefore, it is extremely important that if the commissioners are drawing up by-laws to deal with their obligations under this Bill, they should consult with the Foundation about all details of those by-laws. Section 3 states:
The Commissioners may, with the consent of the Minister, make by-laws for the care, maintenance, management, control, preservation, protection and development of the Park and the regulation of the use of the Park and the maintenance of good order therein.
It is a serious omission that the Foundation should not have a statutory right to be consulted about all such by-laws. It would be most unsatisfactory if the commissioners drew up by-laws and did not reflect the views of Fondúireacht an Bhlascaoid. After all, the initial impetus that has brought us this far is the extraordinary energy and capacity of the people who set up Fundúireacht an Bhlascaoid. They are the people who developed the idea and created the climate of opinion which was obviously received very favourably, in particular by the Taoiseach. They were the people who created the climate in which this whole development has taken place. It is important, therefore, that the Foundation should continue to play a central role in all this. It is, therefore, an omission that they should not have a statutory right to be consulted about by-laws which would be imposed on them as well as on everybody else. They should be consulted before any such by-laws are drawn up and that is why I move this amendment.
The question which occurs to me in this connection is this: if the Bill in general was drafted in cooperation with the Fondúireacht, why would the Fondúireacht not require this kind of stipulation which Senator Ryan wishes to insert? Why did they not request that they be given an explicit statutory role, as Senator Ryan now proposes?
Both Senators have a point. First, the Bill was drawn up in full consultation with the Fondúireacht at every stage and they are very happy with the Bill and its provisions. They will be fully involved in the management of the island. In practice, the Fondúireacht will suggest to the Office of Public Works that they would like this or that by-law drawn up and, therefore, the question of consulting — as specifically suggested by the Senator — would not arise. Of course, there will be constant consultation between the Office of Public Works, Roinn na Gaeltachta and the Fondúireacht. We visualise the Fondúirteacht as being the primary people on the ground, managing, looking after and making proposals for development and for the better management of the affairs of the island. The Bill specifically provides that the Fondúireacht will have that responsibility.
What I am about to say now applies to both of Senator Ryan's amendments. We have to look ahead. What we are doing here is unusual. Normally a Bill of this kind would simply give the powers to the Office of Public Works or to a Government Department and that would be the end of the matter, but because of the situation down there and particularly because of the atmosphere Senator Ryan has described, which is absolutely correct, we want to bring the local community in on the management of the affairs of the island from here on and we want to do that through the Fondúireacht.
It is an unusual procedure to have an outside private body actually involved in the management of State property, so we are taking a bit of a leap in the dark. It is an experiment and I am quite certain it will work very well but we have to proceed with some caution because we are making this departure of bringing a body, which is not responsible to this House in any way, in on the full management and indeed vesting in them the full authority for management of the island. For that reason both the Office of Public Works and the Fondúireacht are involved it its management.
The Fondúireacht are an excellent organisation but are not a statutory one. Therefore, it is quite possible and conceivable that in the course of time the excellent people who are there now will not always be there. Indeed we have to visualise that the Fondúireacht might go out of existence, as a lot of these voluntary organisations do over a period of years. I could not, therefore, put in a provision that they have to be consulted because they might not be there. On the other hand, I see the Senator's point of view. I know that both the Department and the Office of Public Works will consult on a regular, ongoing basis with the Fondúireacht but I think it would be a bit unwise to put that mandatory provision of consultation into the legislation in case future developments might create an impossible situation for us. I can give the House the assurance that Aire na Gaeltachta will certainly ensure that the Fondúireacht are consulted, if that has not already been done, before agreeing to any particular regulation or by-law.
I would suggest to the Senator that his concept of consultation will, of necessity, be fully adhered to. The Bill specifically brings the Fondúireacht into the position of management and control so that consultation will have to take place but I think it would be a bit unwise to include that measure as a statutory mandatory provision. There is also, of course, the question that some time it might be necessary to make an urgent by-law to deal with some situation that would arise and it might not be possible to go through a consultation procedure with the Fondúireacht. For example, the Office of Public Works might deem it necessary to bring in as an emergency matter some particular by-law or regulation. I think, on the whole, it is better to leave it as the legislation is framed, with a solemn undertaking by me as Aire na Gaeltachta, binding on my successors, that the Minister will ensure that the Fondúireacht are consulted, if possible, before any regulations are made.
There is no conflict of values or philosophy here but, with all respect to the Taoiseach, I am not sure that he can make a commitment, other than in law, which is binding on his successors. I accept the Taoiseach's goodwill in this matter, and I accept quite clearly that this Bill would never have come before this House with the speed it has done were it not for the fact that he has a particular interest in it, as have a considerable number of Members of this House. As I said in my Second Stage speech, a part of his heart is in that part of the world, as is my own. Indeed, the same goes for others. The problem with the Office of Public Works is that they can be both remarkably good and remarkably bad. We just have to look around here or at the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham to see how remarkably good they can be, but you can look at the new Government building which they imposed on Sullivan's Quay in Cork to see how remarkably bad they can be. As long as the philosophical base and the attitudes are correct and as long as the inspiration is there, they will be very good.
I believe that with the present Minister for the Gaeltacht there will be no problem in the immediate future but what bothers me is that the essential vitality of this whole exercise is to retain something alive. It is not meant to be just a memory of what used to be. The objective of this Bill, as of an awful lot of public policy, is not just to remind us of what used to be in the Gaeltachtaí but to keep them alive and, in those living Gaeltachtaí, to preserve and sustain an alternative strand of our heritage. The Foundation represents local sentiment, local feeling and local understanding. I appreciate the problem of them not being a statutory body, but they are the nearest thing we have to a representative voice of those who are connected with that area.
It seems the commissioners are being given far too much leeway and far too much capacity to act independently, particularly if there is not a firm guiding hand in a future administration to direct them. I accept that as of now with the present Foundation, the present Minister and the present attitudes there will be no problems, but I do not accept that there could ever be such an urgency about that area that the Office of Public Works, based here in Dublin, would be entitled to make by-laws without consultation with those who are there on the ground. A fundamental issue that I cannot accept is that there can ever be a situation where a centralised metropolitan authority can have the right to make regulations about a local area without local consultation. I do not accept that that degree of urgency can ever exist. It is inimical to any idea of local democracy to tolerate that, especially in an area like this where we are not talking about big power politics. I regret the fact that the Taoiseach is not keen on the amendment. I can see the problem, that the Foundation might not exist.
I would make one more point and that is that these by-laws will have to be laid on the Table of the House here which is another safeguard, if you like. The Office of Public Works would not be totally untrammelled in the exercise of their jurisdiction.
I appreciate what the Taoiseach has just said. Of course they will have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, but this is not a problem of law; it is a problem almost of philosophy. Should we write into legislation that it is the right of those who initiated this whole idea, who created the climate of opinion where it became a matter of complete consensus within the political system, to be consulted about the State making regulations about something that is essentially their project? I think we should.
If section 5 were not there the Senator might have a point, but that section brings the Foundation, An Fondúireacht, totally into the picture and gives them a very special role in the whole management of the oileáin. I think if the Senator keeps that in mind and keeps in mind the fact that the Office of Public Works have to have the sanction of Aire na Gaeltachta for any by-laws and that those by-laws have to be laid on the Table of this House, which would certainly give the Fondúireacht an opportunity to get in touch with deputies or Senators if that absurd situation ever arose whereby they would object to a particular by-law. Knowing these islands fairly well, I think it is always possible that there might in some cases be an emergency. Fondúireacht might take it on themselves to get in touch with the Office of Public Works or Aire na Gaeltachta and say: "There is a threatening situation developing. Somebody is behaving badly or in regard to the island is doing something which is inimical to its best interests and we want you to act quickly and make a by-law."
I want to pay a very sincere tribute to the Foundation who came together with a view to acquiring the main Blasket Island for the State. They have great intentions for the Blasket Island. The Office of Public Works, in general, have always consulted the local people and people who were interested in the national monuments. I am sure they will now do the same. Then they have introduced the by-laws. I served in that Department for a number of years and I have always found that the Office of Public Works do things in the right way, and in consultation with interested people.
As I understand it, Senator Brendan Ryan said that the Foundation hurried the acquisition of the main Blasket Island by the State. I remember many years ago — it was about 1979 — when my colleague on my right, Senator Tom Fitzgerald, put down a motion in Kerry County Concil — asking the State at that time to acquire the main Blasket Island for the State. When I was Minister of State at the Office of Public Works I was requested by the then Taoiseach, who is now our present Taoiseach, to try to acquire the land of the Blasket Island for the State. Indeed, we endeavoured to do that. I am quite sure that the by-laws can be left in the hands of the Office of Public Works. In the past they have never done anything wrong; my experience is that they always introduce by-laws after consultation with the local people and even with the local authorities and I am quite confident they can do so in the future.
I think it is a great pity the Taoiseach would not look more favourably on this amendment. I see it as being more necessary in the future than today, because quite honestly I believe we could be creating a white elephant. While I have no objection to a historic park on the Blasket Island, I am saddened as I have said on Second Stage of this debate that we are not providing for a living presence on the island. I believe that pressure will come, be it in ten or 50 years time. Whatever body replaces the Foundation will be the body who will be getting most pressure because there is bound to be some local——
I have to warn you that I will not tolerate Second Stage speeches on any amendment in this legislation today, or indeed any day.
I had not intended making a Second Stage speech. We came to an arrangement last Wednesday that those who were offering would be given a two minute slot rather than a ten minute slot which our colleagues who had gone before us got. I understood you, a Chathaoirligh, and the Leader of the House indicated we would have ample opportunity to say on Committee Stage what we had wanted to say on Second Stage. That way my understanding.
We are on amendment No. 1 to section 3 of the Bill——
I believe that it is an important amendment and will be seen in the future to be of greater importance than it might seem today because I have a gut feeling that the pressure will come for a living village on this island. I believe the presence of people should have been maintained on this island over the years. I am a bit frightened when the Taoiseach says that a guarantee to these people is that it would be laid before both Houses because it was inaction by the Oireachtas, the inaction of our predecessors over the years, that has the Blasket Islands without people. To have an historic park on the Blasket Island it will be necessary to have easy access. It will be necessary to build a pier——
Senator McMahon, this amendment is about consultation. Address your remarks to that, please.
It has to do with consultation as to the future by-laws for the park. The point I am making is that to have a national park, an historic park, it will be necessary to have easy access; otherwise what are we building the park for — the birds? We have to get people out there. I maintain that if we were to include in this national park, or in part of the Blasket Islands, provision for a living——
You are still not on the amendment. You are on the section rather than the amendment. We are now discussing Senator Brendan Ryan's amendment. I am not encouraging you to make a speech on the section.
I am endeavouring to——
Paragraph (g) of section 2(3) is relevant to the point the Senator is making. It gives specific power to the Office of Public Works to provide these things, to provide transport, piers and everything that is necessary.
We will be coming to that later. The point I am making is that it is of utmost importance that we have an input from the local people, and indeed from the people who were forced off the island if there are any of them left when the time comes for making these by-laws. I ask the Taoiseach to have another look at this amendment and perhaps on Report Stage to bring in his own amendment. I do not entirely agree with the amendment that "after consultation with the Foundation"— the Foundation, as the Taoiseach has indicated, may not be there. I believe there will always be a local committee and there will always be local interest until people begin to live on the island again. I would like to see some way of permitting people to come back to the island because I believe it will come alive again when there is easy access: lack of access was the main thing that drove the people from the island in 1955.
I have to correct myself. As the Bill stands at present it does not specify that the by-laws have to be laid on the Table of the Oireachtas. I will provide for that in the Dáil. All it does provide is that the by-laws shall be displayed in the park itself on the island. I think I can give an undertaking to the Seanad that in the Dáil we will provide that in the Bill. My main problem is that the Fondúireacht may not be there. I hope it will, I am sure it will, but we have to look far down the road when we are passing legislation of this kind and try to provide for all eventualities. That is my worry. If there is a mandatory provision here to consult with the Fondúireacht, that might get us into difficulties. I would certainly visualise full consultation. There will have to be consultation because the Fondúireacht will be involved fully in the management of it.
Secondly, in response to another point made by Senator Brendan Ryan, it will not be a situation where the head office of the Office of Public Works in Dublin will be deciding things for the Blaskets. The Office of Public Works will have local people down there. I am quite certain they will have to employ wardens or rangers and these people will be the operative people and not the bureaucrats in Dublin. Having said all that, I am anxious to get all Stages passed here today. I do not know if I can give an undertaking about Report Stage.
However, I will look at this again and see if some provision could be put in which would involve consultation but which would not get us into mandatory difficulty — perhaps some phrase like "having consulted to the extent that seems to them appropriate" or something similar. I might be able to do that in the Dáil, if that would satisfy the Senator.
That covers the main difficulty that I had. In supporting the amendment, I was worried mostly by that point. The Taoiseach has covered it in the sense that there has been consultation until now. I had discussed the Bill with the members of the Fondúireacht and they were quite happy with the way the Bill was developing and the proposals on it. However, the Taoiseach, in giving a commitment that will cover it by positive or negative statutory process through approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas, covers our sense of responsibility towards it. The one issue that worries me if this provision were to go through was the response of Senator McMahon. When I hear talk about pressures for building a village on the island, that is all the more reason that I would be very careful about the form of consultation. Last week we talked about the fine responsible, efficient and effective work of the Office of Public Works. In the parks that they maintain and operate and manage right through the country, the same can be said. Any that I have seen have been most impressive. Therefore the purpose of the amendment put forward by Senator Ryan was not in any sense to dilute their responsibility, but to include the local people. I believe that the Taoiseach's affirmation that he would at a later stage bring in an appropriate change. It covers all the points that have been made and in fact protects the island from pressure groups of any sort, except those who have shown their commitment to it as it stands.
I will, of course, withdraw the amendment. I am not clear what the Taoiseach said he would do. Is the Taoiseach going to ensure that the by-laws are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas? Is the Taoiseach also going to have a look at whether it is possible to change the wording? Is the Taoiseach going to do both?
Yes.
I would be a less than generous man in that case if I did not withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (2) (h), line 35, to delete "section 2 (2) (g)" and substitute "section 2 (3) (g)".
This is a drafting amendment to correct a typographical error in the original print.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(j) the control, or prohibition of the use of any form of wireless receivers including transistor radios, cassette players, portable CD players and portable TV sets."
The intention of this amendment which inserts on page 4, between lines 36 and 37 the following phrase: "the control, or prohibition of the use of any form of wireless receivers including transistor radios, cassette players, portable CD players and portable TV set." is clearly part of the intention of the Bill as generally framed because it recognises the value of An Blascaod Mór as an amenity. The intention of this amendment is simply to secure further the enjoyment of that amenity. People who wish to avail of this sort of amenity would in most cases want to be protected from what I can describe as noise pollution. If you go to an area of natural beauty to enjoy the scenery, you do no wish to be lifted out of it by the ill-advised use of a ghettoblaster. Many of us may be all too familiar with this in the public parks and greens even of our own city of Dublin. It could be argued that this is not excluded from the range of provisions and it remains within the scope of the Bill for this to be added later. The reason I put this amendment down is not that I was unaware of this possibility but that I think it is a matter of priority and that a number of us would feel there is an element of prioritisation in this and that we wish it to be clear that this specific intention of the by-laws is to enable people to have precisely the kind of enjoyment of the environment that I have spoken about.
In conclusion I reiterate the point that you do not, in my opinion, go to the Blasket Islands to listen to pop music. You go to enjoy what a pop song once described as the sound of silence, the sound of waves breaking on the shore, the sound of sea birds and the sound of the wind. I hope there will be a positive response to this amendment.
I fully understand the reasons behind the amendment but I must say I can see very little merit in it. In some sense it is busybody legislation. Those who go to the Blasket Islands can, for the most part, be almost entirely depended upon to be people who would not want to interfere with the peace and quite of others. But there can be situations — it could be a group of students on the island who would like to hear the All-Ireland Hurling or football finals or might wish to follow what is happening in the European Cup, and to have some officious official coming down and telling them that they cannot listen to the wireless is going too far and does not really merit a place in legislation. I suspect that the sort of people who are attracted by the Blasket Islands will be people who, if they do bring a radio or a portable television with them, will probably want to listen to the sort of music that is appropriate to the setting they are in. I think we are going too far to write this into the by-laws. It is best left to the good sense of the people who are on the island.
I agree with Senator Manning. This is unduly restrictive on personal liberty. You cannot stop people from bringing with them what is now part and parcel of their baggage of life, as it were. Indeed, as Senator Manning said, they might wish to listen to some sports event, or they might want to hear, as I frequently want to hear, what goes on on Raidio na Gaeltachta. What could be more fitting than on An Blascaodh Mór to hear the news of what is happening in Dunquin and who has come home from America, etc. Certainly that would be valid and legitimate. I understand Senator Norris's point. It is an aesthetic objection he has which we all share but I do not think we can carry it to the extent of implementing it in law. You might as well make it a requirement for a visit to the Blascaod Mór that if you feel like singing you would be allowed to sing only a sean nós. It belongs to that kind of category of prohibition.
I have a certain sympathy with Senator Norris but I remember an old friend of mine from An Ghráig who has since died getting involved in an intense argument in Óstan Dún an Óir one night. He got very angry and said "Ba mhaith libhse go gconódh muidne i seanmhúsaem —"You people would like us to live in an old museum". It is a living part of our heritage that we are trying to preserve. While I accept that ghettoblasters blaring in one's ear are offensive there are ways under general regulations to deal with that without telling people that you cannot play a transistor radio under any circumstances. The idea that the citizens of West Kerry would be told on a Sunday of an All-Ireland Football Final that they could not listen to the match if they happened to be on An Blascaod Mór seems to me to be at fundamental variance with what we are trying to do in this Bill. I understand fully what Senator Norris is bothered about but I do not think this is the way to some the problem.
I agree with the views of the Senators who have put down the amendment — it is hideous to go to a beach and hear blaring radios. I think they are carrying it a step too far here because as Senator Manning said, the people who go to the Blasket Islands are not the type who will have their radios at high pitch and they will not be there in their hundreds anyway. What we should be doing is ensuring that the legislation will do all it can to encourage people to visit and not prohibit people who may want to listen to a particular sporting game from doing so. Even if they are on the island and there is a radio playing, I do not think it will cause too great an annoyance to the other users of the island. In fact, the group using the radio or cassette might be the only group on the island.
Last Sunday week, a fine summer's day, I took a stroll from Lough Dan in the heart of Wicklow along that beautiful volley to Lough Tay and there were literally hundreds of people walking that valley. You cannot use your car, you are only permitted to walk the valley, and we came across two people using cassettes. It would have annoyed me if I had to stay with them, but there was ample room to move on, and there was ample room overhead for the noise to rise. It did not annoy us or anybody else, but there were only two people using radios out of hundreds. It could have been a break to the bird song, or the silence in the valley, but it certainly did not annoy anybody. I believe to include this amendment would be an unnecessary prohibition and indeed might discourage somebody, who might only have that particular afternoon — while his favourite hurling match was on the radio — to visit the Blaskets. I think we should permit him to listen to his radio or cassette.
Aontaim leis na Seanadóirí nach n-aontaíonn leis an riail seo. Ní dóigh liom go mba chóir an iomarca rialacha a chur isteach sa Bhille. Sílim go gcloífidh daoine leis an riail pé scéal é, is cuma an bhfuil sé ann nó nach bhfuil. Ó mo thaobh féin de, is minic a úsáidim fuaimeanna chun ainmhithe a tharraingt i dtreo mo chuid cheamaraí.
I agree with the Senators who do not agree with this particular rule, although I can understand Senator Norris's concern. However, I very often use a ghettoblaster to attract certain animals closer to my camera and I hope I would not be banned from using one on the Great Blaskets. We can have too many rules and I think people will just enjoy the atmosphere of An Blascaod Mór.
As a native of Corca Dhuibhne I could not imagine west Kerry people going out on a Sunday afternoon to see the Blasket Islands without having access to a radio to hear what was going on, particularly in the football world. On the other hand, I think the objective of Senator Norris's proposal is to control good order on the island. This is covered in an earlier part of the Bill which says that the commission may make by-laws for the maintenance of good order. If somebody were playing a radio or cassette so loudly that it interfered with good order under the existing regulations the commissioners could control what was going on. There is a great sensitivity in west Kerry about attitudes towards the Gaeltacht, particularly from people outside. I know because I went to school with people who were not allowed access to English novels until they were almost at third level education. It is something they bitterly resent.
I know people from the Gaeltacht who do not speak Irish because they feel it was presented to them as the language of the oppressed, and in a similar way the tendency to reject modern developments, is something that was always resented both by the Blasket people and by west Kerry people, in general. I feel it is unnecessary to put forward this amendment to the Bill. There is adequate control in the Bill to do this. As well we are asking people to go to the Blasket
Islands to enjoy themselves, to enjoy their day out, and we should not restrict them in any way. It is, after all, a leisure park as well as a historic park. It is a place where we would want people to go, not as they would approach the silence of a shrine but for leisure time activities, going to a place where they can enjoy and be a part of the environment, and perhaps even assimilating some aspects of modern life into it.
To my mind, Senator Norris's proposal is covered by an earlier part of the Bill. Knowing him, I do not believe he would want to reject any developments, He is talking about the interference with other people's enjoyment of the island. There is adequate control in the by-laws at present to do that.
The wording of the amendment is not consistent in so far as it says "the control or prohibition". There is a big difference between the two. It is fair to assume that many people will visit the National Park. Irish people and Europeans will visit that park and if we get perfect legislation everbyody is happy with, people will be afraid to go there. To those who have expressed fears about control and management, radios and cassettes, etc, I would invite them to see how a national park works very satisfactorily.
Where?
In Glenveagh, Donegal——
Invitation accepted.
For these people who have now expressed fears and reservations, it would be a weekend well spent to see a national park working satisfactorily, and all of the fears and reservations may be laid to rest.
I fully support what Senator Norris said. I am slightly surprised at the uncharacteristic outbreaks of tolerance from all sides of this House, especially from my fellow Independents this morning.
You can sing that.
Including Senator Manning. Honestly, it can be a terrible imposition to go into a public place or public park and have people blaring radios at you in an unrestricted fashion. My understanding of this amendment, to which my name is added, is that this is not asking for the banning of all these things. It is asking for the control or prohibition, and maybe it should be "controlled" rather than "control or prohibition". Senator McGowan is right. But it is asking for restrictions on these things because the Blasket Islands, presumably, are expected to develop a certain character and maybe a certain tranquility. It is possible that people will go over and ruin other people's stay on the Blaskets because they have got these particular objects. I notice that section 3 (2) (g) includes "the regulation or prohibition of the use of vehicles or specified vehicles in the Park," specifically for the same sort of reason, because of noise and pollution. I cannot see why including these particular objects put down in this amendment is inconsistent with the rest of these clauses.
The point has been well made at this stage that people feel there is adequate provision already within regulations to ensure that an orderly set of regulations and behaviour patterns can be established without putting it in the Bill. It is important that we would not lose sight of the tourism dimension in this whole concept, and the Taoiseach talked on that quite substantially last week. We are acutely aware of the significant historic value and the need to preserve that value. It is important that we should have a significant tourism dimension to it. The least number of constraints that are put on people the better. Given that we appear to be satisfied that it is within the compass of the Office of Public Works to ensure that their own park rangers who will be on the island, this will ensure that a certain acceptable level of noise is achieved. I do not think there is any great need to put it down in black and white.
It is particularly important that we should encourage young people to go to the island and see for themselves what life was like there in the last century. Maybe it is an indication of the age gap that is in evidence in this House or that we are out of touch with young people that we should expect them to go through a whole day without listening to a radio. It is quite unrealistic in the modern context. On behalf of the young people here I suggest that this is a bit of an overkill and we should be satisfied that the staff who will be on the island will be quite competent to ensure that an acceptable level of noise is maintained.
The Senator has included the Taoiseach in the young people.
There is no way that we could possibly include Senator Norris's amendment because he refers to "the use of any form of wireless". It is very important on any island to have a wireless of some description for transmitting and receiving. I am sure the Taoiseach knows that you have to communicate. That part about the prohibition of the use of any form of wireless receivers is not on. Enough is said about cutting out the use of transistor radios. Generally people in parks, in the Zoo, or wherever, have the use of a radio and they do not go crazy. They do not play it wildly all day. Control, yes, but prohibition no.
A Chathaoirligh, this is a very interesting discussion on this point. First of all, I want to comment on the suggestion that the Blasket Island is a place of peace and quiet. More often than not the natural surroundings and the wind and wave are such that you would not hear a transistor on the island. The first point I want to make is that if we are going to do anything here it would certainly be better done by by-law than in the Bill itself. There is a practice by the Office of Public Works of making by-laws on this matter. In fact in the by-laws governing the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park in Killarney there is a very specific provision says:
No person shall save with the permission in writing of the Commissioners and subject to such conditions as the Commissioners may prescribe conduct or take part in any musical performance whether vocal or instrumental music, dance, concert or other like entertainment in any part of the park or operate any radio, cinema, television of gramophone apparatus in the demesne section of the park.
The Office of Public Works are certainly on the ball there in so far as the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park is concerned.
I want to point out to Senators, because this is probably very relevant to some of them, that in the by-laws governing St. Stephen's Green it is stated:
No person shall within the Green, without the permission of the Commissioners, engage or take part in any dancing, theatrical or musical performance, or operate any radio, cinema, television or gramophone apparatus.
I want to warn Senator Norris, in particular, that he must not go dancing and tripping the light fantastic through St. Stephen's Green or he may be in trouble with their lordships in the Office of Public Works. Those two provisions are there by way of by-law. If anything is to be done about noise or about these things on the island, it would be better done by by-law than by actually putting it into the statute.
The Office of Public Works can take note of what has been said here today and decide whether or not they think a by-law of some kind would be necessary. I believe it would be necessary to have a general type of by-law which would make it necessary for anybody who wanted to run a concert, for instance, or some major public event on the island to receive permission to do so. That is something that it would be reasonably necessary to do.
In order to display my knowledge of young people to the Senator, I want to point out that most of them, as far as I can seem use things called a Walkman whereby they can hear anything they like without intruding on anybody. I suppose the Office of Public Works would not find it necessary to ban the use of a Walkman on the island. It is a question of balance and commonsense. There will probably be some provision in the by-laws to govern public occasions and events of a public nature. Whether that would necessarily be extended to govern the use by individuals of radios or transistors is something we will have to consider.
A number of Senators spoke on this matter. I would like to say that I recall one of the most pleasant occasions of my life was when I was out on the Aran Islands one beautiful sunny Sunday afternoon sitting in a circle around a radio on the ground listening to one of the All-Ireland semi-finals, which Dublin won, and imbibing reasonable quantities of Guinness' dark brown stout. I would be loath to prevent such an occurrence on the Blasket Island should the occasion arise.
Is the Senator withdrawing his amendment?
Yes, but I would like to make some comments beforehand. The Taoiseach put his finger on it when he talked about balance and reasonableness. In his response he indicated that he possesses these two qualities perhaps more than some of the other speakers I may say. My colleague Senator Ross almost literally extracted a phrase from my mouth when he said that he was astonished at the outbreak of liberalism around the House. I am not, because I believe most of the people here are fairly liberal.
I was amazed at the outbreak of individualism which is a slightly different thing. I am also astonished that so few of the people who spoke so passionately on behalf of the rights of the individual, and so on, and as Senator O'Callaghan did about tourism, were apparently unaware of the by-laws that operate in many of the parks, as the Taoiseach has correctly indicated, throughout this country and also throughout many European and American parks. I can assure the House that, if it is the intention of the House to attract tourists to this kind of amenity, they will not do it by encouraging the playing of ghettoblasters and so on.
The reason behind the amendment which I will be withdrawing was to prevent the use of wireless and transistor sets as instruments of aggression. This is something that does happen, I am sure Members of the House will be aware of this and it is precisely for these reasons that many parks have the kind of by-laws to which the Taoiseach referred. I accept that it may well be that the proper place for this mechanism of control is in the by-laws rather than as a section of the Bill.
I would also have to concur with Senator Ross when he expressed surprise that this particular amendment drew so much ire because it comes in a section that prohibits a lot of other things many people want to do. It allows the prohibition of access to specified areas. I am surprised we have not been treated to the views of various Senators with regard to this particular issue, if indeed, as they maintained it was such a matter of principle to them all. Perhaps we should have been treated to their views on this restriction which is far more severe.
Is the Senator withdrawing his amendment? If he withdraws the amendment we will get on to the section.
Yes, I am withdrawing the amendment, but I have not quite finished withdrawing it.
It is taking the Senator a long time to do it.
It is simply my sense of style.
I am well used to it. I am well used to the Senator's style now.
I would not wish to find on the record of the House that I concluded on a comma. I always like to achieve the dignity of a full stop. There was another point I would like to make, that is that I do not believe that people seriously go to the Blasket Islands merely to listen to this kind of entertainment, although, of course, I would be devastated if I felt that anything I put down as an amendment to a Bill of this House prevented Senator Eamon de Buitléar using wireless equipment to attract birds on the Blasket Islands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 5 is consequential on amendment No. 4 and both may be discussed together. We are taking amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 5, subsection 2 (a) (i), line 21, to delete ", upon the passing of this Act,".
This is a point of some substance. As the Senators know, the Bill confers on the Office of Public Works the power to compulsorily acquire lands, except certain lands. We are exempting from the powers of compulsion holdings which are in the possession of the original island stock. That is what we are aiming at. There are still a number of people living there — this relates to a point also made by Senator McMahon — who have the original houses on the Blaskets occupied by their families and it was to cater for those people in particular that we put in this exemption provision.
I know of one particular case where a descendant of an island family have their house on the island and it is preserved meticulously as it was in the old days. I do not think anyone would wish that family to have to go through the procedure of having their property acquired and then maybe having to buy it or lease it back from the Office of Public Works. We decided the simplest thing is to exempt from the compulsory powers those who are in that position, either somebody who was actually living on the island at the time it was deserted in 1953 or an immediate descendant or a close relative of such a person.
As the Bill was drafted there was a flaw in it to this extent. If such a person sold his or her property after the passing of the legislation, then that property could pass into the hands of some complete stranger and would not be subject to compulsory powers by the Office of Public Works. It was in order to correct that that this provision is made. We want to preserve the right of the original islanders, their relatives or descendants to their property and at the same time we want to ensure that if that property is disposed of, it then becomes subject to the compulsory acquisition powers in the legislation. That is what these two amendments are about.
The Cathaoirleach will tell me if I am in order. I want to discuss the point of distinction being made between certain kinds of lands being exempted and others being subject to a compulsory purchase order.
When we discussed Second Stage last week in a glow of cultural nostalgia there was, nonetheless, a feeling of unease expressed by Senator Manning, among others, about certain unresolved problems and the constitutional consequences that might follow and an interview on the programme "Morning Ireland" intensified that unease. I want to ask the Taoiseach if everything has been done that could be done to resolve whatever legal problems could be foreseen with respect to 17 holdings or 25 holdings, which have been the subject of interviews with a particular person in Dingle. Has everything been done, before drafting this Bill, that could be done to meet any possible unpleasant consequences of the legislation? That is my problem. My information is that proceedings may well ensue and that the constitutionality, which we worried about last week, lies in the distinction which the Bill makes between exempting certain lands from the compulsory purchase order. Can one, in fact, make this distinction in equity? Why apply a compulsory purchase order at all? Why not leave it to the discretion of the Commissioner to treat particular hereditary land in a favourable way? Will this section be challenged constitutionally?
It would be very unfortunate were there to take place an unseemly, and perhaps in the end a very expensive, legal wrangle following on the serene atmosphere in which we passed Second Stage last week. I hope that everything has been done that can be done.
The points made by Senator Murphy are roughly in line with the points I wanted to make. I have one or two further points to make, one of which I raised here last week. I did so because of what I had seen in the Irish Independent of that day. I thought it was better that the matter be discussed here. As the Taoiseach said last week, the publication of the legislation clarified a number of other people's minds about coming out with particular points of view.
I should like to add to Senator Murphy's points. Clearly, compulsory purchase orders are an everyday fact of life. They are made in the common interest and for various reasons. Are we sure in this case that it is possible, without fearing a substantial challenge in court, to distinguish between the two categories of owners on the island? Perhaps the Taoiseach has had legal advice on this and, if so, he might elaborate.
Secondly, has any attempt been made by the Department to try to talk to the people in question since the debate here last week if that is thought appropriate, and if any progress has been made in that regard? Perhaps if the Taoiseach would think it appropriate between the passing of the Bill here today in the Seanad and its introduction in the Dáil, which I suppose will be in the next two, three or four weeks?
Shortly. It has to be.
So long as there is a week's breathing space between it leaving here and coming into the Dáil — even eight days would be better. Is it proposed to talk to these people in any way? I do not know who these people are. I am simply raising the matter because it is better that we trash it out here at this stage.
I am glad to help the House on this matter. Firstly, continuing efforts have been made locally by the Fondúireacht and others to bring the matter to some sort of conclusion without success. I really think this Bill was necessary as a catalyst, so that we will know where everybody stands in the situation. On that basis then we will be able to proceed. It is certainly the firm intention of the Fondúireacht, myself and the Office of Public Works to proceed on the basis of voluntary agreement, amicable settlements if at all possible. I am reasonably confident that will be possible.
As we all know, in these matters, whether it is a local authority or a Government Department who are concerned, attempts are always made to arrive at some reasonable and fair settlement with the compulsory powers always in the background to push the situation on a bit and make sure that the State body or local authority have the necessary power on their side to have the matter settled. Every local authority and Government Department would prefer to have the agreement and the settlement rather than the protracted procedures which are involved in compulsory acquisition. It is a long drawn out process that involves hearings and submissions and, very often arbitration, and takes a long time. Therefore, everybody would prefer if the objectives could be achieved by reasonable and honourable settlements. I hope that will be the case. It would certainly be my intention that it should be the case. At the end of the day we have to have compulsory powers in the background to make sure that matters are resolved. I assure Senator Murphy that a lot of negotiations and discussions went on and attempts were made before the legislation was introduced and that these will continue. I hope they will come to fruition.
On the constitutionality point, I do not think there is any danger there. First in so far as individuals are concerned there is no real distinction being made. There is some distinction being made in the case of property. Even a person who is exempted, a member of an original island family, will only be exempted in so far as his or her residence is concerned. All these original holdings had the rights to about 1,000 acres of the island which was commonage, farmed or looked after in common. We are acquiring that 1,000 acres compulsorily even though some of it belongs to the original island families who are exempt. In that regard we are not making a difference between people. It does not matter if you are a member of an original island family you can still have your commonage rights compulsorily acquired, just as residences can be compulsorily acquired. The only distinction we are making is that a member of an original island family will be exempt from compulsory acquisition powers in so far as their actual family home is concerned. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that we will not have constitutional difficulties.
I hope that common sense and reasonableness will prevail, that the compulsory acquisition powers will never have to be used and that we will be able to proceed on the basis of voluntary acquisition by the Office of Public Works — voluntary acquisition, whether it is to do with the residences or the commonage or whether it has to deal with the members of the original island families or others who have bought properties since the island was deserted.
I want to point out to the Seanad that while everybody's mind is concentrated on one particular group of holdings, there are other holdings on the island which are in the possession of persons who are not original island families. They, too, will be subject to compulsory acquisition, if necessary, the same as the person that most people have in their minds is concerned.
The amendment to this section goes part of the way to meeting what I had in mind in that it would permit an islander, or a former islander, who kept his home in reasonable condition and lived in it, even if only for a day, to retain that home. Indeed, if I understand the Taoiseach correctly, even if the house had not been lived in at all since the islander left it, so long as it has been retained by the family, it could remain the property of that family. This will facilitate a person or a family who had the means to keep their homes. Many of the families concerned would probably not have had the means to enable them to return to the island and see that their homes were kept in adequate repair even though those homes would have meant as much to them as would the house that was kept in good repair.
Even if the house is in ruins it will be exempt from compulsory acquisition if it is still in the possession of an original islander or a close relative.
And can remain with the islander.
Yes.
I am glad to hear that because I am sure many of these islanders or their relatives, when conditions permit access to the island, will return there either totally or for part of the year. This should be encouraged. I am happier with the Bill now than I was last week because I feared that the entire island was being taken over and that the former islanders had no rights thereon. It is not too clear, with regard to compulsory purchase of the commonage if it will be a viable proposition for the islanders to return to the island because many of them would be depending on the grazing of that commonage to put bread and butter on the table. I do not know what the 1,000 acres will be used for. Will it be a bird sanctuary or will the wildlife on the island be permitted to increase at any rate it so wishes to the exclusion of the livelihood of the islander who wishes to return?
There may be many of these ruined houses which could be brought back to living conditions provided it was economically viable for the family. I may not be on the main island when it is an historic park. I do not know how fast things will move, but both people living here and people from abroad would visit the island if it was an historic park though they would probably never make a return visit, having seen the national park.
The Taoiseach may argue that this island will not be deserted by reason of it being an historic park but it is very little different from some of our islands which have been deserted in recent times, and which one visits once in a lifetime. If you establish a village on it people will return there again. I am sure the Taoiseach has had this experience in regard to other islands. I would like to see greater encouragement given to the former islanders to return to their houses.
With regard to the matter raised by Senator Manning and indeed he raised it last week and the Taoiseach responded to him by indicating that this Bill was flushing out the interests on the island. I am inclined to disagree with the Taoiseach on this. I think it is the reverse, that it is the threat of purchase of more of the properties on the island that prompted this Bill and pushed the Government into bringing forward this Bill. There was also local pressure. I do not disagree with that because since 1953 it was open to purchase by any interests in any part of the world for whatever reason. I could not see a profit being made except perhaps in the future for holiday homes or something like that but it was wide open for purchase.
While not knowing the details of the purchases that were made there by the people referred to in the Irish Independent last week, I would see them as doing something which the Government should have done in 1953 or since then. We should have been interested in the island at that stage, but successive Irish Governments have shown little or no interest in the Blasket Islands until somebody purchased property on it. That is the way I see it. It is the reverse to what the Taoiseach is saying. It is the purchase of properties on the island that prompted the Government to bring forward the Bill to make it an historic park.
I would like the Taoiseach to deal in a little more detail with what is going to be on this 1,000 acres or if there will be any grazing rights on it. As I know the Blasket Islands this was one of the easier islands to live on. That is a strange thing. There is probably more fertile soil per acre on the Blasket Islands than there is on any of the other islands around our coast and they had a supply of fuel which they do not have on the Aran Islands which is more heavily populated. They have to import every sod of turf and lump of coal they burn there. They did have some supply of fuel on the Blasket Islands and they could produce cattle and sheep. The difficulty was in getting the cattle off it, as the many photographs I have here will indicate, as they had no pier. With a pier provided that grazing can be utilised. I wonder if the Taoiseach has in mind the acquisition of all the grazing land and all the grazing rights on the island and then expect the islander to go back and live in his home with no means of providing his or her bread and butter.
It is quite obvious on the basis of what the Taoiseach has said here this morning that inordinate lengths have been gone to to ensure that the legitimate landowners have been provided for by way of accession. This is very welcome. It is equally important that the 1,000 acres of commonage is being acquired. I come from an area where there are thousands of acres of commonage and Solomon would not solve the problem of commonage between neighbours as anyone representing rural constituencies will know. The only way to do it is to take it all in one fell swoop. I have problems with Senator McMahon's idyllic concept of what he is hoping to achieve here. It is somewhat at variance with the Office of Public Work's concept as I see it.
The Senator is young enough, he will probably live to see the day.
Having given this concession to the owners who have it by way of accession, they should not be able to retard further development. There is little point in allowing a native or the son of a native to keep the ownership of his cottage if it is going to appear as a cavity in the midst of all the others. Obviously there are the constitutional property rights and so on but having said that I wonder if it would be an appropriate time to say, having conceded the absolute right of the owner by way of accession, as is his right under the Constitution, that he or she will not be entitled to retard the overall development of the concept by virtue of the fact that he will say: "Look, I am sorry, I own this house and I will do what I like with it". That is his right under the Constitution. If we are hoping to achieve a certain atmosphere here, which the Bill appears to be endeavouring to do, it will be retarded by this problem of people saying: "Look, I am sorry, I am not in a position to go on at this moment", "I do not want to go on" or "I feel the house should be left in ruins" or whatever. I wonder whether the Taoiseach would deem it appropriate to say: "All things being equal and assistance being made available to the landowners, they will have to keep in step with the concept the Office of Public Works are hoping to achieve in the total context".
Coming back to the information given to us by the Taoiseach that the exemption from compulsory purchase extends only to the residences of muintir an oiléan and not to lands in a wider sense, why then does the Bill not say so specifically? Instead of the word "land" why does the Bill not say "residences that are owned by a person"? Would that more specific wording not make the Bill more constitutionally watertight and remove the concern we have about two different sets of landowners being treated differently?
I am delighted to see that some of the former islanders who owned property on the island will be allowed to retain their property on the island. That is only right and proper. Indeed, I must be honest and say I did not know until the Taoiseach mentioned it here this morning that all the commonage would be acquired and purchased. I spoke about the commonage on Second Stage and it is very important for all of us to realise that the commonage consists of more than three-quarters of the main Blasket Island.
Senator McMahon mentioned that nobody had any interest in the main Blasket Island until quite recently. I would like to let him know that Kerry County Council had an interest in the island. This island is an area of "no development" under the county development plan which means that nobody can build on it. Under a "no development" plan if a landowner or a houseowner wishes to repair or improve their house or build a house on their land, under the planning laws they can do so. I can assure you that Kerry County Council monitored very closely the people who had land on the Blasket Islands and all the houses on the Blasket Islands were photographed by the officials of the planning authority of Kerry County Council and it is on record in the Office of Public Works. This is important because as far as I know those photographs were not available from anybody else.
I welcome the fact that some of the property will be left in the hands of the former islanders. I am delighted to hear that all the commonage can be acquired and I hope that it will be acquired by agreement.
I used the word "residences" but I want to make it clear that I do not mean just the houses but the little plots of land, sometimes two or three acres, on which the house is situated. In so far as they are owned or occupied by members of the original island families, they will be exempted.
In reply to Professor Murphy's question as to why we did not put it the other way round, that is a question of drafting. This is a complex situation and this is the way the draftsman decided to do it, to have a compulsory acquisition power covering everything and then excludingout certain holdings and exempting from that exclusion-out the commonage attaching to those holdings. It is a little complicated but this is the way the draftsman decided and I believe it is the right way to do it. It certainly achieves what we want to achieve.
I have to agree with Senator O'Callaghan that Senator McMahon is being a little idyllic. There is no way in modern circumstances that anybody could go back to live on the Blascaod Mór and be able to provide for themselves out of their holding, including the commonage. That would not be feasible. Even in the old days, when the people living on the island were, perhaps, a lot hardier and more robust than we are today, they found it very difficult in normal circumstances to make a living between farming and fishing and the occasional bit of salvage. Therefore, it would not be possible to visualise anybody going back there today, establishing themselves and being able to support themselves from their possessions on the island. I would not rule out the possibility of people going back to live there; indeed, we all hope they will, either for the whole year or part of the year but we would have to accept that they would have to support themselves from some other source. In any event, the commonage would not make much difference to them because any one holder of a residence would be entitled to one-twenty-fifth of the commonage and that would be very difficult to work out. There is really no way out of it except to acquire the whole commonage, as Senator O'Callaghan has rightly pointed out. Commonages are very difficult matters to deal with and I am satisfied that the only way to deal with this commonage is to acquire the whole lot, as the legislation purports to do. What will happen the commonage afterwards is entirely a matter for management.
The Bill sets out to make the Blascaod Mór into a national historic park. Therefore, it will primarily be a national park and in that context we will have to leave it to the experts in the different disciplines to decide what is appriopriate and suitable. One would certainly visualise it being a bird sanctuary. Whether other forms of fauna should be introduced there is a matter for consideration and decision, and people like Senator Eamon de Buitléar, I am sure, will be involved in giving advice. That will have to be decided by the Fondúireacht and the Office of Public Works working together to decide what will be possible, feasible and desirable with the concept of the nationa park being in everybody's mind at all times.
I hope that deals with the points raised by different Senators, particularly Senator McMahon. I do not think that giving people access to the commonage would in any way contribute to people going back to live on the Blascaod Mór although, however, it is not impossible to visualise a situation where if somebody did try to do that the Office of Public Works and the Fondúireacht might consider leasing them some part of the commonage to give them a chance to have a go. That would have to be decided by management. I agree with Senator McMahon that it would be desirable if some descendants of the original island families re-established themselves there but we will have to wait and see what happens.
Primarily, what we visualise happening is that, first, there will be an interpretative centre on the mainland which will give people the fullest possible information about the island and, secondly, that we will be in a position to provide reasonable access facilities in terms of transport to encourage as many people as possible to visit the island. I would certainly visualise the principal, if not all, the houses being restored to the condition they were in when the island was lived on and then some imaginative proposals being put forward for the preservation or development of the flora and fauna. That would have to be carefully considered and the best possible advice obtained as to how that should be done. The possibilities are enormous.
Last year a major survey of the Blasket Islands was carried out by the Irish Wildbird Conservancy on the body of the bird life and it revealed very rich results. That is the way I would visualise things going — certainly, a bird sanctuary, the preservation of flora and, if it is possible, the introduction of new types of flora. That is not always very desirable or very successful but it is something which can be considered. Also, different types of animals might be introduced on the island. That is a matter for the Fondúireacht and the Office of Public Works, getting the best possible advice available to them.
I am somewhat encouraged by the Taoiseach giving way that if there was a person or people anxious to go back and set up home again on the island that grazing would be considered. I sincerely hope that that is noted and put on the record because it goes some way to meeting the wishes of many people. I wonder if the Taoiseach is inclined to under-estimate the people who left the Blasket Islands? They left a home which was near and dear to them and there is still an attraction for them to get back to the Blaskets. I do not care what the Taoiseach, Senator O'Callaghan or anybody else here says, I know many islanders and I know that they have a wish to continue the life and culture that was on that island. They are the custodians of an Irish heritage and culture that no money that will ever come from Europe will replace if we lose it. The Taoiseach should be looking more positively at encouraging people to go on to the island and giving them State assistance. It should not be left up to them to repair their houses and set up family on the island again and depend on the grazing or commonage, which was quite considerable because many photographs are available to show this. I have one here which is on the cover of Muiris Mac Conghail's book and is a telling picture. While one cannot see the entire beast that is being loaded into the currach, it is evident from the head and shoulders that its a heavy beast that was reared on the island. Not many heavy beasts have been reared on the islands around our coasts. I have no date for the photograph but there are 15 men loading that beast from rocks into a currach.
You should read Tomás Ó Criomhthain's description of it.
I know and, indeed, I have seen films of beasts being loaded. Shame on us for having those conditions on islands such as the Blaskets, that we are all thinking so much about today. If only we had put a pier on it in the thirties or forties, or even as late as 1950, it would still be a living village. The State should encourage the people to come back and make it a living village. The European Commission are carrying out a survey of the islands of Europe but the islands around our coasts are not included. I would like to know why. Why have we been excluded from the European Commission survey of the Islands of Europe? Honestly, the first thing that should have been done here, before this Bill was brought before the Oireachtas, was to look at that survey so that we would know exactly how our islands stand. Look at the number of islands that have been completely evacuated in our time.
The Senator is making a Second Stage speech.
That culture has been lost. The Blaskets are now getting some attention but there are other islands which have been vacated and which are getting no attention, and their culture is also lost. That is something no Government or the EC will ever replace no matter how much money they provide. It will be shame on all of us here if we allow this to happen, and we are allowing it to happen on the Blaskets.
It is fine for the Taoiseach to say that if people come back and repair their homes and want to live on the island, we will consider giving them grazing rights, but you are taking everything from them. To me that is tantamount to compulsory purchase. We are not taking your house, you can have it, but you cannot have the means to afford living in your house. It is forcing people — like we forced the islanders to leave in 1953. The last blow to these islanders was the closing of the school in December 1947. They could not possibly live there any longer because education was dear to their hearts, as can be seen by the amount of literature that has emanated from this island. I believe we are going the wrong road. It happened in the Blaskets but I am making a plea that it should not happen on the other islands and that the Government must ensure that conditions on the islands are such that the people will no longer have to load cattle from the rocks into currachs. No wonder they had to evacuate the islands.
I make a last minute plea to the Taoiseach to have a further look at this Bill to ensure in so far as is possible that any islander, whether he left in 1953 or 1945 or in 1930, or his descendant, who wants to return to the island will be facilitated and encouraged to go back. It is pointless to tell people that if they had a house there or if they had property there they can repair the house and live in it, but that is all they will have on this island. The rest of it is the historic part. That is no good to them. Give them some encouragement to go back and give them State assistance.
Part of the commonage is no good either.
It is pointless for Senator O'Callaghan and, indeed, the Taoiseach to say that these people will not return to the island because it is not viable. There are many people living in the west of Ireland——
Acting Chairman
The Chair cannot continue to be lenient. The Senator has made his point and I would ask him to come back to the amendments, please.
There are many people living on islands and in the west of Ireland who are not getting a living from their holding but have another income — either another job or State assistance — and I would ask the Taoiseach to have a serious look at making the old village on An Blascod Mór a living village again. That is the greatest service we can provide for the nation. I believe we will have many more visitors to the island if there is a living village on it rather than just an historic park so far, and difficult to get to, from the mainland.
I really must put on record my total disagreement with Senator McMahon. His sentimentality, I suppose, does him credit. Maybe it is because I am an historian that I am totally unsentimental about the past. What is over is over. The culture of the Blascaod Mór is now a matter for museum preservation, as it were. This is what the Bill says. The Bill is about a national historic park. I do not believe people should be encouraged to come back; I think it is unrealistic anyway to think that they will. Are they going to live at a 1940 standard of living when they come back? The thing is just sheer nostalgia. Moreover, I submit that any encouragement to people to rebuild the Blasket Islands in living terms is a contradiction of this Bill. You cannot, on the one hand, have a national historic park with all the elaborate things planned for it and, on the other hand, an attempt to repopulate the island. I think Senator McMahon's obviously sincerely held view is, nonetheless, inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill.
Other references have been made during the debate to living heritage. The whole point about this is that it is now a dead heritage. I do not believe that even An Blascaod Mór relates to the Gaeltacht any more. The mainland relates to the Gaeltacht and so on, but it is now a State park under State auspices for the enjoyment of the people of Ireland and its former phase is over and done with, and that is that.
Níl ann ach gur mhaith liomsa aontú leis an Seanadóir John A. Murphy. Ní dóigh liom gur féidir an Blascaod a thabhairt ar ais, na daoine a thabhairt ar ais ná an saol a thabhairt ar ais mar a bhíodh sé.
I remember when I first met Seán Ó Riada. The very first thing he wanted to do was that himself and his wife and myself and my wife would go out and repopulate the Great Blasket. But even at that time, although I felt it was quite an exciting venture I was afraid, for one thing, that I would waken up one morning and the naomhóg would be gone and so would Seán, but I did not see that it was realistic. It was all very well to talk about An Blascaod Mór and to have all the writings that we have had. My reason for publishing this particular book — I published it fairly recently — was to keep in our minds what these people had and to remind us of what is on the mainland, which is the Gaeltacht, which I see as being so important. We should be taking care of the Gaeltacht islands we have at the moment and the Gaeltacht areas along our coasts. I do understand what Senator McMahon is talking about, but I also think it is unrealistic.
I made a point in relation to whether this Bill bestows special rights on the landowners and how it fits into the Office of Public Works' plan for the island. Can they retard the development? I know they might not want to.
Senator McEllistrim is absolutely right. The planning laws will still prevail and the Office of Public Works will now have more than adequate powers to completely control all developments of any kind, and particularly any kind of undesirable developments. Even though we are leaving the residences in the possession of the original island families, or their descendants, we are not giving them the power to do anything they like with them. They will still be very, very rigidly controlled. In fact, one would visualize nothing happening except that the old houses will be restored to their original condition, and that will be that. Perhaps the Office of Public Works, or the Fondúireacht, will wish to provide some basic facilities and amenities on the island for visitors, but there again, these would have to be very sensitively planned and designed and kept under the most rigid control. I hope that deals with the Senator's point.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 5, subsection 2 (a) (ii), line 25, to delete ", upon such passing,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 5, subsection 2 (b), line 29, before "paragraph (a)", to insert "subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of".
Again, this is a technical amendment designed to clarify the provisions. It does not make any change.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 5, subsection (4), line 48, after "ancestor," to insert "spouse, widow, widower,".
The same applies here. This amendment is to give the word "relative" a more specific meaning to include spouses, widows, widowers, etc.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On section 4, we wish to emphasise again our hope that the final settlement will be by agreement rather than by compulsion and ask the Taoiseach to see that everything possible will be done in that regard.
That is the philosophy behind the Bill.
I am not entirely sure that An Blascaod Mór is entirely unoccupied. If I recall correctly, there is a fairly rudimentary hostel in operation there for part of the year. I would like to clarify this. The owners of that hostel, as far as I know, would not be people who would be referred to in subsection (2) (a). Presumably that property would be subject to compulsory acquisition.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, subsection (3), lines 17 to 21, to delete paragraph (d).
Section 5 of the Bill is — the Taoiseach referred to this earlier — the most imaginative and in many ways the most inovative part of the Bill. It is a proposal that the functions of the Commissioners, who are a statutory body, would actually be delegated to An Fondúireacht, which is actually a private body or a voluntary private organisation. This must be quite a unique proposal. Because of that I can understand the worries and concerns that would exist on the statutory side about how it would work. Section 5 — and it is necessary, unfortunately, to go into the provisions of section 5 to explain the amendment — deals with the delegation of specified functions of the Commissioners under this Act and makes the appropriate omissions, particularly to do with by-laws and compulsory acquisition.
My feeling about section 5 is that in an attempt to circumscribe every possible eventuality the section has got itself tangled up in organisational knots that could lead, in my view, to considerable confusion. For instance, subsection (3) (c) says that "the delegation shall operate, while it is in force, to confer the function on and vest it in the Foundation". It is a particular function that is given to the Office of Public Works which is then, in turn, delegated to the Foundation. Paragraph (d) is the one I propose to have deleted, and I have to say it took me three or four readings to even figure precisely what paragraph (d) meant. I am not in any way trying to be offensive; I had difficulty with it. It says:
The function shall, notwithstanding the delegation, continue to vest in the Commissioners but shall be so vested concurrently with the Foundation and so as to be capable of being performed by the Commissioners or the Foundation.
If I was running a business organisation and was trying to persuade my management system to get involved in proper delegation of functions, I would not encourage that sort of duality, where on the one hand the function is delegated and on the other hand it is not, which is what appears to me paragraph (d) is suggesting. While it is delegated and while it is everybody's intention at this moment that all these delegated functions should be carried out by the Foundation, at the same time it does appear under paragraph (d) that they are not really delegated, that they are only doing them as long as the Office of Public Works allow them to do them and that any of the functions could still be carried out at any time by the Office of Public Works if the Office of Public Works saw fit.
It does not seem to be properly defined structured delegation of the kind that would enable a system to operate. It seems to produce the possibility of confusion, of duality of responsibility, which is not the way, in my view, to make this work. I can understand why it happened. It seems to me that paragraph (c), that "the delegation shall operate, while it is in force, to confer the function on and vest it in the Foundation", is the nub of this. The Minister may amend or invoke an order if the Foundation is not felt to be carrying out its delegated functions adequately. This would be good management theory — that the senior authority would say: "Right, that delegated function is not being carried out properly; we will withdraw that delegated function and give it to a higher level of decision making". To leave a parallel functioning — two parallel systems with the same functions — seems to me to be a recipe for future confusion and uncertainty.
All of the other provisions of section 5 make perfectly good sense but paragraph (d), which is the one I propose to delete, seems to be a recipe for duality and, as a result, in the long term for uncertainty. I would be interested in the Taoiseach's views as to why it is necessary, because it seems to me there must have been a particularly good reason to put it in, given that it seems to be at variance with the concept of delegation.
The first point is that we are not dealing with a business organisation, and I would fully agree with the Senator's approach if we were. We are dealing with an unusual type of situation here, as I have already said. First of all, we want to take this island into the possession of the State. The island will become State property. Normally, that has a fairly direct succession of consequences whereby the Office of Public Works takes over the property, runs it for the benefit of the public and is answerable through the Minister of State to the Dáil and the Seanad. Here we are trying to go just a bit further than that. If you like, we are experimenting. We want the advantages of State acquisition, ownership and responsibility and at the same time we want local community involvement.
We are trying if you like — I admit it — to ride two horses at the same time. We are trying to have the advantages of State acquisition and ownership and, at the same time to have community management and involvement. Because that is an unusual situation we have tried to devise an unusual formula to deal with it. I am fairly confident it will work.
A provision of this kind is already in our legislation, in the Ministers and Secretaries Act of 1977. In that Act a Minister may delegate some of his functions to a Minister of State while, as the same time, exercising the right to carry out those functions if need be. Every Minister of State is somewhat in the position that the Fondúireacht would be here. The Minister of State is given the responsibility and authority to go and run a particular section of a Department while, at the same time, the ultimate authority is concurrently vested in the Minister of the Government. I could visualise for instance, a situation developing where the Fondúireacht would want a reasonable type of pier installed and would not have the resources to provide it themselves. They would than go to the Commissioners and the Commissioners would step in and provide the pier; so both bodies would be concurrently involved in the provision of that amenity and that facility. The same would perhaps arise in the case of a major visitation to the Blascaod Mór by a scientific body, either somebody investigating the flora or the fauna, a visitation which would be beyond the capacity of the Fondúireacht to organise and manage but which they would like to see taking place. Again, they would ask the Office of Public Works to provide all the necessary arrangements and facilities for such an event. It is an attempt to devise a formula which will basically give the day to day management of the Blascaod Mór to the Fondúireacht and at the same time not cut themselves off completely from assistance, back-up and support from the Office of Public Works when it is necessary.
I would appeal to the Senator to leave the Bill as it is. We have given a lot of thought. The Fondúireacht are happy with it. They like that particular provision and we are farily confident that it will work out satisfactorily. It is an attempt to reconcile two opposite concepts, one being State ownership and management ultimately with responsibility to this House and secondly, the fullest possible level of local involvement in the management of the National Historic Park.
It is a very good definition of modern socialism when you see the concept of State ownership under local control. I can compliment the Taoiseach for that. I have no desire in any way to delay the passage of the Bill. I simply have the unfortunate slightly organised mind of an engineer and somebody who had the misfortune to do some training in management at one stage. However, if the Taoiseach is, as he appears to be, satisfied that this arrangement will not result in any confusion of functions, and if the Fondúireacht are so satisfied, that is fine. I cannot be here giving lectures about Dublin bureaucracy and then attempting to improve on what is acceptable to the members of the Fondúireacht.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
On the question of property, last week we had news about the people who already own property, or who say they own property, on the island. I am seeking clarification, but I do not want to be legal about it. If the Taoiseach cannot reply to it because of the legal situation, I can well understand. Is it a major problem, is it people over-reacting, or is it a situation where the commissioners of somebody in the Department could have discussions with these people so that we can create a happy atmosphere and so not hold up a good and responsive Bill?
That is what we intend.
Very good.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Taoiseach be happy that there are moneys from other sources where we could use for our national parks? for instance, could we use moneys from the national lottery to help the Blaskets?
Yes. Section 7 perhaps optimistically looks to some wealthy philantropist donating a couple of million pounds to the Fondúireacht to let them provide all sorts of amenities and facilities. It means that the commissioners can accept such gifts.
I think that, if we continue with the example that has been shown already, there is no reason we cannot ask the banks or somebody else to throw in a few bob one way or another. We would be quite happy with that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are similar and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (2), line 9, to delete "he" and substitute "the member or the authorised person".
These two amendments are simply to clarify and make the provisions of the Bill that bit more explicit. They are of no substance.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 7, subsection (2), line 10, to delete "he" and substitute "the member or the authorised person".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am a bit unhappy — it could well be a lack of knowledge on my part — about the fact that there is no definition of an authorised person in the Bill. Is there other legislation which defines an authorised person or from whom does the authority come or who are the authorised persons? I presume they are the officials who are working in the park.
Subsection (5) defines an authorised person as a ranger or a warden.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 and 10 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We have three amendments to the Schedule. Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 8, paragraph 2 (1), line 25, after "objection" to insert "in writing".
Again these are really only tidying up provisions. One is that an objection has to be lodged in writing. That is amendment No. 11. The other is to make it clear that the Minister must consider an objection, which I think the House would agree with. Amendment No. 13 makes the provision in regard to objections a little more specific. It means that the Minister will have to have full knowledge of the case made by the objector before coming to a decision, which as democrats we would all agree with, I am sure.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 8, paragraph 2 (3), line 32, after "withdrawn," to insert "the objection shall be considered by the Minister and".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 8, paragraph 2 (4), between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(a) a copy of any objection concerned under subparagraph (1),".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill."
On the Schedule, I refer to section 5, paragraph 2. This is the question of compensation to be paid for lands acquired compulsorily. One of the great difficulties in compensation under compulsory acquisition is to assess the actual market value of land. Does the Taoiseach have any idea of the criteria that will be used in assessing the compensation value? Obviously, in other areas it is the market value. If you are compulsorily acquiring land in Dublin city it is the market value for land of a particular kind in a particular zone. Since development is so restricted on An Blascaod Mór it would appear that the appropriate compensation would be the current use value, which is essentially a very basic agricultural usage. On the other hand, if it were to be identified as being a potentially enormously lucrative commercial development in terms of holiday residences, the value of the scale of compensation could be enormous. It is reasonable that people should be reasonably compensated, but I do not think some of the speculative adventures that people get involved in in buying up sites on an Blascaod Mór ought to be rewarded by the taxpayers by way of excessively generous compensation. Is there anything we can do to ensure that that does not happen?
Just two points. First, as I have already mentioned, we would hope to proceed mainly by way of voluntary acquisition. In the event of that not succeeding, we would proceed by way of compulsory acquisition. Even then under compulsory acquisition there can be agreement. Only at the end of the day, with everything else having failed, does it go to arbitration. The legislation on arbitration is fairly specific. Indeed, there has been a lot of case law built up since the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, was passed. The statutory mechanisms to decide practically any case that might arise are fairly adequate. The Senator is right when he says that the value of land would be very much determined or controlled by the fairly restricted uses to which the property could be put.
There was mention last week in particular parts of the press of the amount of land owned by one or two people who already own land there. Whether they bought it from the original owners, I do not know. Could I ask the Taoiseach if it is still possible to have discussions with these people. I would not like, as Senator Brendan Ryan has already said, anybody to get the impression, because all of a sudden we are wakening up to our traditional culture on the Blaskets, that we would have a situation where people might take advantage of it. I would resent that very much, and I think we all would.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
There may not be a lot of things that the Taoiseach and I agree about but I do know that around the beginning of August most years he and I head in the same direction. It is particularly gratifying to have this Bill come before the Seanad and, for my own part, to have had the opportunity of contributing a little something to the vitality of a place that — even though my origins are nearly 200 miles away from it and even though my present home is over 100 miles away from it — is still a very important part of my life, and I think that is true of the Taoiseach as well.
Whatever I may have said on other occasions about the present Government, and indeed other Governments, I want to compliment them on the Bill, for the extraordinary exercise and consultation that went into it to ensure that it was acceptable, particularly to the local community, and to wish the Bill a speedy passage through the Dáil. There are a lot of difficulties along the way. I want to wish success to the whole endeavour when it moves out of the Oireachtas and into the world of development outside. It is something that will make a very special place in my life much more alive. I hope it will contribute, not just to reminding us of what used to be, but to the vitality of all that is still unique about that part of our country.
Cuirim na mílte fáilte roimh an mBille. Déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Taoiseach as an obair mhór atá déanta aige. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go geal leis an obair atá idir lámha ag Oifig na nOibreacha Poiblí agus ag Fondúireacht an Bhlascaoid.
Ba mhaith liomsa comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Taoiseach de bharr an Bille seo a thabhairt romhainn. Is fear é a thuigeann an chuid sin den tír, agus tá an t-ádh linn go bhfuil i gceannas orainn duine a bhfuil an oiread sin suime aige sa cheantar sin agus a chaitheann go leor dá chuid ama sa Ghaeltacht. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh leis an mBille nuair a théann sé go dtí an Dáil.
On behalf of my party I want to thank the Taoiseach for bringing this Bill before the House. It is certainly recognised as a highly motivated Bill. As a person who comes from an urban area, Cork city, I would not be au fait with the Blaskets. However, the people recognise the work done by the Taoiseach on this and he is to be congratulated in proving at long last that we are aware of our culture. If only we had people of the breed of the Blasket islanders throughout the whole country, then I think the whole world would look upon us with joy.
As a person from an urban area, I have to admit that I really know very little about Irish. It is sad to think there are so few of us who know it. We now have an opportunity to ensure that those who know a little Irish will have the chance to speak it more often. That is vital. The ordinary people from all parts of the country must go and see the Blaskets. I would be worried that the people so closely involved in the Foundation might as a result create a situation that the person from outside might not be allowed to come there. We should not allow that to happen. The Blaskets have a lot to give, and the history of the Blaskets should be in our soul. It would be great, for instance if we could get a school from Cork and one from Dublin to go there together on the one day, to meet each other in this historic part of Ireland.
I want to thank the Taoiseach for this Bill. It is a Bill that is highly motivated and we would welcome more Bills of this kind.
I am delighted this Bill was introduced here in the Seanad and I would like to thank the Taoiseach for having introduced it in this House. I know he has a great interest in the main Blasket Island. We have many different types of national parks in our country and we now have added to them this island park known as An Blascaod Mór National Historic Park. It is the first island park we have had in the country and it is a great addition to the other national parks.
Ba mhaith liomsa cur leis na focail atá ráite cheana. What we are doing here today is establishing a monument to an age that has gone. The important thing about the Blaskets is that by our decision here today, by the decision to set up the National Historic Park in the Blasket Islands, we have recognised what a number of generations did, where they charted their own development from an underdeveloped stage into the modern world. I do not know of any other community in any culture that has done that themselves. There are plenty of records by outsiders who have observed from the perspective of the objectivity of the outsider; but here we have the subjectivity of the people who are going through this period of great change, writing about it and recording it. That has been such an addition to our literature that it is totally appropriate that we establish this historic park geographically to coincide with where those people lived.
Not only will we have a regular flow of visitors, but I would predict that people will travel from far and wide to see it. I have no doubt in my mind that there is a certain draíocht ag baint leis na hoiléam sin that draws people to them from a far distance. I have no doubt that we will have scholars and students from overseas and our own country and we will have people who are interested in cultural development and in all forms of culture. It is also going to be a huge tourism boost to that area of Ireland. In that sense it is a tourism boost to all of Ireland, because it will be another stop for the tourist. It will be something that is quite unique. We have spoken time and time again in this House of the need to present the uniqueness of Irish life and culture and history to the visitor. That will certainly happen.
I would also like to commend the Taoiseach, not in any patronising way, but in a sense of saying that it is an innovative and progressive piece of legislation. It has been welcomed by all sides. I think the sincerity of people's commitment to discussion, in amendments and otherwise, has shown that there is total support for this kind of Bill. It is a perfect example of consensus government. There should be more of it.
Or that it should continue.
Or that it should continue. I would say that it has been a good week's work bringing this through the Seanad. I wish it the best of luck in the future and I certainly know that it is something that will be appreciated by people in all levels and places in Irish life.
Os rud é gur fear áitiúil mé ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le gach éinne sa Tí a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht ar an mBille stairiúil seo chun é a chur i gcrích.
I would like to place on record my thanks, as a local person involved in the Dingle Peninsula and indeed with the Blasket Islands over a number of years, to all the people who participated in this House in bringing this Bill to fruition and indeed all the people behind the scenes. Were it not for Fondúireacht An Bhlascaoid, which was set up about three or four years ago, possibly we would not have the opportunity to debate this matter today. In my opinion — and I am going to do a bit of boasting — it is a very historic occasion that this Bill was introduced to the House on the day this beautiful building was reopened to the Seanad and also that the Taoiseach was with us on that occasion. I think everybody in this Chamber will remember the day the Blasket Island Bill was introduced to the Seanad.
Senator McMahon said he wanted to make this a living island. Indeed, we can assure him that from now on it will be a living island because sons, daughters and relatives of the people who lived in the Blasket Islands, relatives of Tomás Ó Criomhthain, Muiris Ó Súilleabháin, Peig Sayers and others, will now have an opportunity of working on the island and restoring it. Possibly as time goes by, when these buildings are restored, there will be craft shops and so on on the island. There will also be an island centre on the mainland. I can assure this House that once this Bill is completed and the island is handed over to Fondúireacht An Bhlascaoid, it will be very much a living island. With regard to compulsory acquisition, I intend to help out as best I can in achieving an amicable conclusion rather than having compulsory acquisition. I am sure the Taoiseach has reiterated that this is what will happen.
I will be very brief because I am sure all that needs to be said has been said already. I would like to be associated with the passage of the Bill through the House. While a lot has been said about the importance of this Bill and of retaining the cultural heritage of An Blascaod Mór, it is equally important that we should record the Taoiseach's own commitment to the remaining living islands off the coast. Coming from a constituency that has many inhabited islands, both Gaelic and English speaking, I would like to say that this is a spur for all other island communities as well. As I said a little while ago, while you can be idyllic about the concept of island life, it can be a tremendously difficult life and anybody who has had occasion to live with island communities knows that.
I am aware that the Taoiseach is acutely interested in the development of all the other islands off the coast and indeed has liaised to a great degree with Comhcumann Oileánach in that development. Indeed very early in the life of this Government he came down to Cape Clear off the west Cork coast to launch a windmill development which was totally innovative in the context of Irish islands at that time. It has proved to be tremendously successful and has subsequently ensured the development of island life there by contributing in a large way to the development of a new pier in the past few months. While we record our appreciation of putting on the Statute Book the need to retain places like the Great Blasket Island, it is equally important that we continue to focus on the need to strive might and main to ensure that the remaining living island communities off the coast get every assistance. I am quite sure, if the track record of the government to date is any indication, that will be the case.
In conclusion, now that we are passing the legislation — and I have no doubt it will go through the other House with expedition as well — I hope it will become law quickly. The tourism dimension of this debate cannot be under-stated. Senator Fitzgerald referred to the need to move on with the interpretative centre on the mainland and so on. Another matter which has been mentioned but which I will not go into now is the need to improve transportation to the island for tourists — I am wearing my tourism hat for the moment because it has been the subject of much complaint by tourists. I would like to be associated with the expressions of appreciation to the Taoiseach this afternoon.
I, too, would like to be associated with this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to establish an historic park on An Blascaod Mór. It is a very historic occasion in view of the fact that the Blasket Islands themselves are very much a source of inspiration for our culture inheritance and for the development of that inheritance. On the wider front the Blasket Islands too will encourage further development of a right sort in the Corca Dhuibhe area which is an extraordinary, rich and varied area. We can think of Reask, the other great early Christian sites there, as well, of course, as the beauty of the area itself.
However, to go back to the source of the Bill, I think the Government and everybody involved will learn quite a lot from initiating this whole concept. I certainly wish it every success and I congratulate the Taoiseach for initiating and bringing the Bill forward. Comhghairdeas don Taoiseach agus beir bua agus beannacht don obair.
Gabhaim buíochas mór leis na Seanadóirí go leis a ghlac páirt san díospóireacht inniu agus ar an Dara Céim. Níl aon amhras orm nár gur ócáid stairiúil í seo mar dúirt roinnt mhaith Seanadóirí.
I want to express my deep appreciation to the Seanad for the manner in which it dealt with this legislation and for the very helpful attitude of all who participated in the debates. I think it was a very good debates both on Second Stage and Committee Stage. It was very helpful and illuminating, and I am deeply grateful to all the Senators who took part. I would also like to express appreciation to the men and women in the Fondúireacht for their contribution which was crucial and essential. Had we not had that very helpful attitude by the local community, expressed through An Fondúireacht, then the legislation would not have been possible. I also want to thank particularly the Deputies and Senators from County Kerry — from the Kingdom — who were very forthcoming, helpful and co-operative. From the beginning I was anxious that this Bill would have all-party support, and fortunately we were able to achieve that.
The Bill will now go to the Dáil where we hope it will receive the same sort of welcome that it has received here in the Seanad. It will then be very much a matter for the Fondúireacht, and indeed for the Office of Public Works with all their experience and expertise, to make sure that the wishes of the Oireachtas in particular, but indeed the local community also, are achieved in regard to this marvellous, wonderful place, An Blascaod Mór. Senator O'Toole has used the word "draíocht" to identify with it and I think that is an excellent word.
A Chathaoirligh, I thank you for facilitating the arrangements for taking the Bill and for getting it through the Seanad so happily and so expeditiously. Ba mhaith liom a rá sa deireadh leis na Seanadóirí go léir a labhair agus a ghlac leis an mBille, ní bheidh bhur leithéidí ann arís.
Question put and agreed to.