Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Oct 1994

Vol. 141 No. 2

Death of Former Member. - Heritage Council Bill, 1994: Report and Final Stages.

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

Mr. Mooney

I welcome the overall thrust of the Bill. However, I want to ask the Minister for clarification of section 10. I am raising this because of a somewhat unusual public intervention by the Minister in relation to a building in Carrick-on-Shannon which was referred to earlier in the debate. The Minister reacted to a somewhat biased and unobjective report in The Irish Times in relation to ongoing discussions about the future of the courthouse in Carrick-on-Shannon. I wish to put on record my extreme disappointment at the statement issued in the Minister's name without having had any prior consultation with myself, any of my parliamentary colleagues, or with the council. That placed us in the embarrassing situation in that we, as a council, are now pilloried by heritage protection groups throughout the country as somehow being philistines and cretins wishing to demolish a building that is 200 years old.

I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify under section 10 whether he intends to use his powers in this way in future in anticipation of decisions which have yet to be taken. In referring matters to the Heritage Council, my interpretation of that section is that if a decision is taken by a local authority, with the best available evidence before it, and that is in contravention of the recommendation of the Heritage Council, the Minister can — if it is not already the case — designate the building as listed. It will then require that local authority to receive the approval of the Government as well as of the Minister.

While I appreciate the reasons and the Minister's thinking on this, I am concerned about the powers in this section. I would like to be reassured by the Minister — not specifically the individual but by the Minister for all time — that these powers will be used in a sensible and practical manner, and that they will not result in an extremely large charge on the public purse because of decisions that would be forced on local authorities against the best available advice.

Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. M. Higgins)

I have already discussed the general point on Committee Stage and I explained the process as to what would happen in relation to section 10 which speaks of consultation with a local authority. Where the Heritage Council and a local authority are in dispute over the future usage of a building, I resisted an amendment that would have automatically referred the matter straight to Government because that would not be the normal practice. It would come to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht to adjudicate between them.

Where a courthouse is owned or used by the Department of Justice or a public building operated by the Department of the Environment, and if the relevant Minister does not agree with what the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht decides, the matter goes to Government to be adjudicated. In other words, the final say — where both the Minister responsible for ownership of the building and the Minister responsible for heritage are not in agreement — rests with the Cabinet. I thought that was only fair, so that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht would not be the final arbiter of a decision in a matter disputed by a Cabinet colleague.

In the second and specific case, I regret if people are putting a construction on what I said that would in any sense make allegations against representatives from Leitrim or elsewhere. It would have been more appropriate if a better consultation had taken place. However, the information which was available at the time was that the demolition which had been reported was one option being considered. The only advice which I gave at the time was that any decisions taken between now and the final passage of this legislation should take account of the spirit of what we are trying to do in the heritage legislation; in other words, that this process which is now being enacted under section 10 should be taken as a guide towards how the future is going to be.

One would like to think that before the Heritage Council is finally signed into law and established its spirit will be observed in the case in question. That was my only intention. If any other place sought my advice on matters such as this, I would give the exact same advice. If the public knows that legislation which requires consultation and has adjudication procedures is being established, it is only wise to comply with it in anticipation. That was my only intention in the case. I do not prejudge the options being available. I am not a member of the local authority. I am simply saying that in considering the full range of options, any option should take account of what the future is likely to be in relation to matters of heritage.

Also, because I do not run away from any issues, frankly I believe that the consultation should have been better between officials in my Department and the local authority involved and I regret that. This legislation enjoys a very strong measure of support from all sides and all parties. I have found that support in relation to monuments and heritage is cross party and it has facilitated me in bringing forward that legislation rapidly, which I greatly appreciate.

Acting Chairman

The discussion was more appropriate to section 10. However, I will make an exception for the Senator's dissertation and allow another comment.

Mr. Mooney

Thank you. I am very grateful to the Minister for having clarified something which, at best, has caused extreme irritation in County Leitrim. I am somewhat disappointed but I do not want to go over old ground. The Minister has explained why he reacted to a newspaper article without prior consultation by his officials with the local authority involved, which was at an extremely early stage of the process, as the Minister outlined. However, that was not the interpretation placed on it by the newspaper article.

What I am really concerned about is that the Heritage Council, with its limited budget, would ultimately be taking on board a very wide power. I am somewhat concerned that the Minister talks in terms of properties owned by his Cabinet colleagues — in title rather than in person — whereas I would have thought that I and my colleagues, as elected members of a local authority, would have a far greater right, at least initially, to make decisions on buildings for which we are responsible. Of course, ultimately, everything is vested in the people.

However, it seems somewhat strange in a democratic context that, for example, the consultations in regard to the future of the building under discussion would take place above the heads of the local authority by the various Cabinet Ministers. If there was a disagreement it would have been conveyed by the local authority.

The Department of Justice has walked away from the building in question because of a report by the Office of Public Works which is not yet in the public domain. This is another State body which has left us, as elected representatives, in a very difficult situation. The courthouse was built for courts and not for a civic office. We tried for three years to get the Department of Justice to co-fund it. However, it walked away from it six months ago and has left us holding the baby. We do not want to close down or demolish that building. I will be the first to stand, as was stated in a rather dramatic fashion by a non elected person in that article, beside the bulldozers, as will my colleagues, if it comes to that. However, that sort of emotive language gets us nowhere. I am really concerned about the powers contained in section 10 as they apply to me as an elected representative.

However, I accept what the Minister is saying. I fully accept his bona fides. I know that this matter is dear to his heart in a general sense and the widespread support about which he spoke would find an echo among my colleagues and myself. I say that with the greatest of enthusiasm. I regret taking up the time of the House but it is a very difficult and emotional issue, as is the whole question of public buildings. I hope that this unsavoury development, which came about over the last couple of months, will be dealt with satisfactorily.

I am concerned about the powers inherent in section 10, because ultimately it is a question of finance, as the Minister will appreciate. The council and his Department will not have the necessary financial resources if it is revealed that the cost of restoration, as in this case, is way beyond what the public purse can bear. Where will the powers contained in section 10 be relevant if at the end of the day there is no money?

I am grateful to the Minister for having clarified the position and I hope that he would not interpret my remarks in a personal sense. I am debating section 10 purely on its merits. I thank you, Sir, for your indulgence on this matter and if the Minister has anything to add, I would be most grateful.

Mr. Byrne

I wish to thank the Minister for bringing this Bill to the House. I listened to the debate with great interest, both in the Chamber and in my office. It is a timely Bill. No Bill is 100 per cent perfect. I am sure that in the years ahead it will rescue many historical buildings and items. I believe that in rural Ireland we have been somewhat careless as a people, particularly since the State was founded, with many valuable historical items.

We all started in the humble national school where in recent items, with the amalgamation of schools and so on, the big, leather bound, roll books have been lost. I am delighted that the preservation of such books has been included in the Bill. However, many of them have been destroyed. Computers are going to take over now. That is part of history. I had the honour of seeing the documents left by the late Eamon de Valera, the former President and Taoiseach. His first thoughts on the Constitution were written in a penny copybook. This Bill——

Acting Chairman

The Senator's comments would have been more appropriate on Second Stage.

Mr. Byrne

I apologise. This Bill will preserve and rescue many historical items. I am grateful for it and I wish it every success. I thank the Minister.

Mr. M. Higgins

I wish to clarify section 10 lest there be any confusion about what is involved. Senator Mooney might be getting one part of it wrong. In the first instance, it is a matter for the local authority. I am simply providing a framework in section 10 so that the confusion which arose will not happen again.

A building will be designated by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht on the advice of the Heritage Council. It will then be for the local authority to consult with the Heritage Council about any work to be done. Cases where the local authority are in dispute with each other or feel that an unreasonable demand is being made of them, or where the Heritage Council says that a matter is of great importance and the local authority is not acceding to it, will come for adjudication to the Minister responsible for heritage, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.

A building such as a courthouse would be the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. I have allowed another mechanism whereby the local authority can say that not only does it disagree with the Heritage Council but that it also disagrees with the adjudication of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht's and it wants the Minister responsible for the area — the Minister for Justice in the case of a courthouse — to go to Cabinet on its behalf. In that case there is a further mechanism of appeal at Cabinet level.

At all stages it begins with the public authority, which I defined in a change which I made today to specifically include local and regional authorities. Their role is there. They then seek advice and if they run into a collision in relation to this there is an immediate mechanism for adjudication. They may accept that, but if they do not it rolls on through the procedure. It is not therefore a matter of starting at the top and moving down but rather one of encouraging consultation and advice at the most local level and having an appellate structure. That is how section 10 will be implemented.

Mr. Mooney

I am grateful to the Minister. I hope we will be getting some money.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Miss Ormonde

I thank the Minister for introducing this legislation and proposing a new Heritage Council so soon after the National Monuments Bill. Having listened to him this afternoon I have confidence in the framework for consultation and the manner in which it is being processed through the Oireachtas. I wish the Minister well with future legislation. I hope he takes on board the comments made by Senators whom I thank for their informed contributions.

Mr. Dardis

I thank the Minister for the manner in which he dealt with this legislation and particularly for his acceptance of several amendments. He is to be congratulated for his openness and willingness to be convinced by force of argument. We all share the hope that the Bill will have his desired effect. I also thank his officials for their part in the Bill.

I was tempted to re-enter some amendments when Senator Mooney made his intervention. However, having overcome difficulties earlier when we had a little division of opinion between the partnership, I would not like to reopen that wound at this stage in the debate. I thank the Minister. I hope that we can go forward and extend the scope of preservation beyond the local authority and into other areas while accepting the complexity of trying to achieve that aspiration.

Dr. Henry

I thank the Minister for his patience in going through the Bill this afternoon. Bills such as this are of enormous importance and in 100 years will make more of a difference than many other Bills which come through this House. I particularly thank the Minister for saying that he will consider members of the hoi polloi such as myself who may not view architecture and archaeology as being quite so close and for considering the establishment of a committee.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I join with other Senators in thanking the Minister for bringing this legislation to the House so soon after the other Bill. I look forward to his introduction of the Wildlife Bill early in the new year. I hope that between now and the debate on this Bill in the Dáil the Minister and his officials will be in a position to, as he said, give serious consideration to the various points raised here. That is extremely important and I look forward to the changes which will come about in the Dáil as the Minister promised. I thank him for his openness in accepting the lines of argument put forward here today.

Mr. Mooney

It would be most ungracious of me not to acknowledge the initiative the Minister has taken. Despite the comments of Senator Dardis, our political relationship is much closer than he might wish to infer and long may it continue to be so. I am particularly pleased that the Bill was initiated in this House. This does not happen as often as Members would like. As a former Member of this House, the Minister may have a more enhanced appreciation of its status than those who have not served in this House.

I hope that this Minister and any future Minister will grasp what seems to be the essence of this Bill, the financial aspect. This is going to be an extremely difficult Bill in practical terms. We all aspire to much of what is contained in the Bill and I know that much will be achieved. However, the Minister — and he knows this better than most — will have a continuing fight with the Department of Finance in relation to some of the matters contained in this Bill.

I thank the Minister for his usual graciousness and for his clarification of the points raised. I wish the Bill well.

Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. M. Higgins)

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl do bhaill an Seanaíd, go háirithe as ucht na dearctha lácha agus foirbhthe a bhí acu. I express my appreciation to the Members of Seanad Éireann for the constructive way in which they have approached this legislation which, as Senators have said, does not belong to any one party or one period of time. It will last. I am also grateful for the cooperation of the Seanad. I assure the House that the changes I indicated will be made before the Bill is signed.

I am encouraged by the debate in the Seanad on this and the National Monuments Bill. As I have said, I am putting a body of legislation in place which will have an educational value. Within a short time there will be legislation dealing with all the different areas of heritage. I hope that will be widely reported and used as an educational tool in schools and elsewhere. Ultimately, the best protection of the heritage is the developed consciousness of all our people.

The constructive points made today contributed to my willingness to accept amendments. I believe that they improved the legislation and that is my general approach. I am very grateful to those who suggested amendments and for the contributions made by each Senator.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 5.15 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.