Before we commence, I wish to remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage. However, the proposer of an amendment may reply to a discussion on it and each amendment must be seconded.
Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historic Monuments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1998: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 22, after "archaeological," to insert "cultural,".
It would not be profitable to rehearse previous arguments on this issue. I know the Minister is sympathetic to our general concerns and we made a fairly comprehensive case on Committee Stage. The Minister said she would consider the matter. However, following my accusations of inflexibility, she graciously agreed to another amendment. I hope she will find it possible to accept the addition of the word "cultural".
Events have reinforced our case, because since the last debate on the issue, the partial demolition of The Mullingar House has taken place. This is the fantasy location of Joyce's last and greatest novel, Finnegan's Wake, and the interior of the house has been completely gutted. It is not an architecturally distinguished house and had no great historical connection. Its only real claim to be retained was that it occupied a central role in the imagination of James Joyce, who hardly knew the place, but where he chose to locate this extraordinary dream in which a drunken publican dreams the entire cultural, political, religious and sexual history of the world in a new language which Joyce invented out of 50 languages.
This is an important location imaginatively, not historically or architecturally, and there is an interest in this otherwise undistinguished building throughout the world. It is important that buildings such as this are retained. The local community feels strongly about this issue. During a previous discussion I cited other instances, some with Joycean connections. I referred to Millbourne Avenue where another undistinguished house of no historical significance was located, except for the place it occupied in the imagination of James Joyce.
I have been lobbied on this amendment by a number of leading groups in the area of architectural conservation such as the Georgian Society, An Taisce and the architectural faculties of universities. We should listen to these people, unless there is a cogent argument against doing so. The Minister said she did not think the amendment necessary. I am not of her view on this matter, but it is a possible view for one to take. While the amendment may not be necessary, it will do no damage and will satisfy the concerns of people like me and groups such as the Georgian Society, the architectural faculties of universities and An Taisce. It will make us feel that we are serious about entering into and sealing off that grey area in which damage may be done to part of our cultural life, simply because it falls between stools. It may be that the Minister's view is correct. Even if that were the case the addition of the word is not going to cause any damage and, if my view is correct, it will strengthen this section.
The Minister graciously and willingly accepted an amendment on the last day on another important but not quite as important a matter. My friend and colleague Senator Henry challenged me when I said it was less important than this one. My reasons for saying that was that the amendment merely underlined things. It specified some of the functions to make it clear that we were including planning and development. Most people would assume these central functions would be outlined but it is no harm to spell it out. I am confident the authorities would have acted in the light that this was the intention. The amendment is reasonably clear yet we are trying to copperfasten it because there is a substantial grey area in the legislation. These anomalous buildings which do not have intrinsic merit but acquire it because they occupy a place in the imagination of a great writer should also be protected.
Frescati House is an example of a building which might fall within the grey area. I remember it as a long, low, rambling villa, dating back to the late 18th century, situated beside the sea at Blackrock. It was not first class architecturally but it had historical significance due to the sporadic visits of Lord Edward Fitzgerald. Can the Minister include the word "cultural" because it would not do any damage and might help save some of the properties that fall into this grey area?
Senator Norris did not do justice to what we said on Committee Stage when he said we covered this area fairly comprehensively. I thought we covered it very comprehensively. However, he has explained our concern once again which may seem ephemeral to some but is of great significance, particularly in a literary context. With regard to the amendment the Minister accepted – which Senator Norris did not consider so important but I did – about planning and development, I pointed out that this so frequently means knocking down premises. I also pointed out that my own abode achieved higher status in the city's listings because other examples had been knocked down. It is depressing to find that you are only being upgraded because there are so few examples of such architecture left in the city. Therefore, we are not being over fussy in asking the Minister to include the word "cultural" in this amendment.
I remember the Frescati House in Blackrock very well. It was a beautiful house. Its connection with Lord Edward Fitzgerald should have saved it because every school child knew the story of his hiding out in Blackrock. It is important that we take these situations into account and I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
Senators should avoid discussing amendments that were accepted last week.
I wish to emphasise that Members on the Government side are not unsympathetic to the points raised by Senator Norris. As he was expounding so eloquently and in such an entertaining manner on the various aspects of Joyce's literature, I thought it a pity we cannot charge an admittance fee into this House on the occasions he goes into his dissertations. Of course, he charges in another context, and rightly so.
For charity.
I am glad the Senator said that.
I thank the Senator for the advertisement; I will put it on my next flyer.
This is not relevant to the amendment.
Your point is well made, a Chathaoirligh. Even though I come from a rural background, I also remember Frascati House and I referred to it in my Second Stage speech as a specific example of what we are talking about. The reason I was in the grounds of Frascati House is that there was a H. Williams supermarket in Blackrock during my teenage years – I worked as a merchandiser for Laird's of Drumshanbo, which made Bo Peep jam – and I travelled there on a regular basis. I was aware of Frascati House, followed its progress and recall the controversy about it.
The relevance of Bo Peep jam to the amendment escapes the Chair.
It is fascinating. The banana obsession on the Order of Business is now Bo Peep.
A Chathaoirligh, having indulged my good friend and colleague, Senator Norris, in his flights about James Joyce, which were relevant and accurate, I do not see what the difference is in me also making references to my experiences.
Absolutely.
However, I bow to your ruling. I raised this issue because it was relevant. There has been a problem in Carrick-on-Shannon over the past number of years relating to the courthouse, which was declared an unsafe building by the Office of Public Works in 1994. This resulted in not only the council members and staff having to vacate the council chamber, which had been located there since 1899, but also the District Court.
There was a big controversy surrounding the future of the courthouse. I am glad it is still there and that public money has been expended in recent years by the Department to ensure that the building has at least been made safe and I commend the Minister for that. The roof, which was in danger of collapsing, has been reinforced through allocations from her Department's Vote.
The planning officer at the time, who is now retired, was not committed to the idea of the building being saved. He said it had absolutely no aesthetic or architectural merit. We, as the elected council members, argued that because the building had been there since 1810 and had replaced the previous one, it was very much bound up in the history of our county town and the wider history of the county and it would be an abomination if there were any suggestion that it be bulldozed and knocked. At that stage we were in the middle of a debate about the provision of a new civic office.
Common sense prevailed and the building is still there. The civic office is being built on an alternative site, close to the old county jail, and there are plans afoot to enhance the courthouse building, of which the Minister will be aware because money is being sought from her. I raise this point in the same context as Frascati House because I hope that the Minister will give us the necessary reassurances.
Looking at comparative legislation in other countries, especially the United States, this Bill stands on its merits. It is commendable. I ask for reassurances, if they are needed – and the Minister is the best judge of that – that the examples which have been mentioned will be encompassed in the Bill. That would obviate the need for the amendment.
The Minister's objective is to make this legislation worthy and to make sure that it will be improved by the work we put into it. That is why we challenge, question and query. We will not have another opportunity to do so in the near future as it is not often that a Bill such as this is introduced. The case made by Senators Henry, Mooney and Norris seems to be worthy of consideration. It may well be that the Minister has a definite reason to say that she cannot do this. If so, we will listen to her carefully. I urge the Minister to support the thinking behind the amendment because it is unlikely we will get another opportunity to address this. If we lose this opportunity, we will not be able to protect those cultural assets, monuments and buildings which are not included in the Bill.
Had I been in Senator Mooney's shoes when the Cathaoirleach was ruling on relevance, I might have claimed that Little Bo Peep was also a literary figure, albeit for children.
Did she live in Frascati House?
I support this amendment for the reasons outlined by Senators Norris and Henry. I was particularly struck by the relevance of their comments on Committee Stage when I read the weekend newspaper reports with regard to The Mullingar House. Definitions are important because at some stage something which should not happen will happen, something we do not like and something which may end up being challenged legally or otherwise. We do not want to be in a position where we will have to admit at some point in the future that if only we had included the word "cultural" we would have afforded protection to many buildings which were worthy of protection but which, for one reason or another, have now been lost. For that reason, I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. As Senator Norris pointed out, if he is wrong the amendment will not detract from the Bill but, if he is right, it will afford a substantial measure of additional protection to very important buildings.
There is no doubt that everyone has a particular objective with regard to this section of the Bill. At risk of being a spoilsport, I have difficulty not just with the amendment but with the wording of the section as it stands. I believe there is one word too many included already, namely the word "social". I have no problem with the terms architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific and technical. However, I do not understand the intended meaning of the word "social". Does it mean "social" in a Dublin 4 sense or does it refer to places where high standards of cuisine and conversation are in evidence?
I have far greater difficulty with the word ‘cultural'. Who is to define what the word means? Senator Norris cited the example of The Mullingar House, a pretty grotty pub which achieves its cultural importance not because of its intrinsic value but because James Joyce wrote about it in an extraordinary way. Where do we draw the line? I want to cite the example of one of my own local pubs, a number of which I share with Senator Henry. There is a pub located on the corner of Baggot Street which has changed names many times over the past 20 years. The poet Patrick Kavanagh frequently drank in this particular pub and was even more frequently barred from it. A particularly kind lady ran the pub and Patrick Kavanagh would invariably seek to re-enter the premises after a certain period of time. As he was approaching the pub from Waterloo Road he would hop into someone's garden and steal, borrow or purloin a few roses which were usually covered in greenfly. He would then write a verse of apology or evocation, wrap the roses in it and offer the flowers to the landlady. She would put the roses into a jar and throw away the verse. Had she kept the verses and thrown away the roses, the University of Texas would probably have paid her or her relatives handsomely for them. Can this pub be considered to have a cultural value because Patrick Kavanagh drank there, wrote an occasional poem there, was barred from it, re-entered it and so on? All the other words – with the exception of "social"– outlined in this section are precise but one person's definition of cultural value could leave someone else cold. We want to prevent barbarism and vandalism etc. but I cannot see any great merit in the amendment.
One of the things which strikes me from all the debates we have had on this issue to date is the near unanimity of the views expressed. I always find Senator Norris's arguments particularly persuasive. That arises to a large degree from the great work he has done with regard to conservation when it was not a particularly popular pursuit. We admire him for that.
In normal circumstances, I would be in favour of the inclusion of the word 'cultural' if only to afford protection. However, if one considers the issue from a legal point of view, the inclusion of too many words might serve to create further confusion. The Minister will outline her own views on this matter shortly. It is difficult to strike a balance in this regard.
I am somewhat saddened by the lack of publicity which sometimes attends a subject such as this. When the legislation is in place, we will still depend to a large degree on local authorities and communities. A process of education is required in this respect although there is no doubt that there is immense goodwill.
I recognise the reason for including the word "social" in the legislation. An example was cited to me which I could not necessarily categorise as of either historical or archaeological value. However, it had a definite social significance – I refer to the bothán scór. When the little cabin in Cashel, once occupied by labourers who paid the rent with their labour, was restored by the local heritage society and opened to the public, huge numbers of people went to see it. They did not go specifically to see the building, rather they went because of the social background to the bothán. They identified with the deprivation which people suffered and the unique nature of paying the rent. People were also aware of the number of children who lived in the particularly small two room building. I welcome the inclusion of the word "social" to cover buildings such as the bothán scór. The local community in Cashel demonstrated considerable interest in the bothán scór.
Perhaps I am looking one step beyond the enactment of the legislation but I hope that the Department of Education and Science and the other Departments involved will make an effort to inculcate a curiosity and respect in young people in regard to their local heritage. I would like all local agencies – schools, local authorities and organisations – to endeavour to create a process of awareness with regard to local heritage. Over the past 30 or 40 years as I have travelled throughout Ireland, I have seen many fine buildings without roofs on them. The roofs were removed to avoid the necessity to pay rates on the buildings. There was no marriage between legislation on rates and the need to conserve or preserve our architectural heritage. We have come a long way since then and I hope this legislation will be relevant for everyone.
I wish to put on record my thanks to all Senators who have taken part in this debate. The debate gave very valuable insights and assisted me greatly in further considering the amendments. It is obvious from the debate and from contributions on all sides that people are not only interested and committed to heritage but that these views and ideas are held passionately. This gives us great reason to hope for the future, not just in terms of legislation but perhaps more importantly in terms of people's hearts. I thank the Senators for contributing today and on Second Stage.
To put Senator Quinn's mind at rest I gave this matter tremendous consideration before coming to the House for Second Stage and in light of the amendments tabled today. It is not, therefore, a quick reaction on my part, but something which is well thought out.
I feel I should also refer to Frascati House as I had the opportunity many years ago of horse riding in the grounds every Sunday morning. I, too, have an interest in that property and its history.
I think all Senators accept that I am particularly interested in ensuring that the legislation is all inclusive and all encompassing. I have no intention of leaving out any terminology which I think would be of further assistance to or would strengthen the Bill. On giving the amendment every consideration, I am afraid I do not feel it would be right to accept it at the moment. We are referring in particular to the Granada Convention which, as I said on Second Stage, includes a very wide and internationally recognised definition in terms of what we wish to achieve through the protection of our architectural heritage. Not only are we covering all the likely scenarios raised in the debate under that convention, but we must also remember the sister legislation in this regard, namely, the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998. The definition in that Bill is the same as that proposed in this legislation.
I understand the concerns raised, but the words used to describe cultural in, for example, Chambers dictionary, are artistic and intellectual or pertaining to artistic and intellectual matters. These are terms referred to under the terms "historical" and "literary"– these issues were addressed in the debate on Second Stage which I do not wish to regurgitate. The concerns expressed are incorporated in the Granada Convention and Senators need not express fears in the manner in which they did as the Bill will include the definitions and protection they wish to see afforded our architectural heritage.
Senator Manning referred to the fact that adding the word "cultural" may be somewhat excessive as he already believes there is at least one word too many in the definition. He specifically referred to the word "social" and suggested that it need not be included. If it is to be included he asked what the definition or meaning of "social" was in this context. Senator Ó Murchú gave very good examples on Second Stage and again today when he spoke about the bothán scór as one very important example of something included under the word "social".
I reiterate that I have given this a tremendous amount of thought. I am satisfied that under the definition in the Granada Convention all these matters are incorporated in the definitions included in the Bill. I hope Senators Norris and Henry will understand why I cannot accept the amendment.
I must accept the force majeure of the Government majority. I greatly enjoyed Senator Manning's contribution. I remember those days of Patrick Kavanagh, although I did not really know him. Amusing and whimsical as it was, nobody would seriously suggest that every pub in which Paddy Kavanagh or Brendan Behan drank should be regarded as a cultural monument. The difference in the context of The Mullingar House is that it occupied a central position in the imagination of our greatest writer.
I accept that.
I would not have missed Senator Manning's description of Paddy Kavanagh, his drinking habits and his wonderful technique. I agree that the woman proprietor of the pub made a great mistake in keeping the roses and throwing the poetry away. Perhaps she did not understand the value and meaning of the word "culture". Otherwise she would have kept the poem. I am afraid we may be holding onto the roses and throwing out another poem if we are not very careful.
I accept there is a logic to what Senator Manning said, although there would be more logic if it was intended that simply by being mentioned every building would have to be retained. We are talking about an inventory of buildings, and I would like The Mullingar House, for example, to be reviewed to see what proper changes and amendments should be made and conditions applied, etc. As far as I can make out they went in and walloped the entire place, carefully keeping the facade so people would not notice as they went by on the bus. That worries me as it is possible that things of intrinsic interest in a Joycean sense were lost. I am not convinced that this matter is completely covered in the Bill.
I would not worry about the Granada Convention. Of course it is an important international instrument, but I do not think we should adopt the position that the intellectual exchange is all one way and that we must simply bow our heads towards the convention and think we could never improve on it. That smacks a little of the natural conservatism of legal advisers who always tend to say "no, we do not want to take this extra step". It also smacks of a practice which I am glad to say is dying out but which was a strong element in Irish legislative proceedings and which involved looking for the nearest, usually British, precedent, copying it word for word and thinking we could not improve on it. The attitude was that if something was all right for the mother of all parliaments in Westminster, who were we to challenge it. In a way we still have that slightly subservient attitude in talking about the Granada Convention. It is not the Lord's Prayer or the Ten Commandments but the Granada Convention which was put together by many different countries. For that reason it may represent the lowest common denominator. There is no reason why we should not be able to improve upon it.
It is interesting that Senator Manning felt there were too many words in the definition. Therefore, his agreement with the position adopted by the Minister is qualified. He thinks she was wrong to include the word "social". Senator Ó Murchú made a very good case for the inclusion of "social", indicating another grey area.
I do not intend putting the amendment to a vote because to do so would be fatuous and irritating. With a bit of luck if I sit down we might pass this Bill by 4 o'clock and move onto the next item, which would be in everybody's interest. I am sorry the Minister has not been more flexible. Perhaps there is a chink in her thinking on the matter. I imagine the same groups who briefed me will brief Members of the other House. Perhaps the Minister may be induced to examine the matter again following arguments put, I am sure not more passionately or cogently, but in a more skilful political manner in the other House. I hope this will be the case as I think we ought to include the word "cultural". I do not have the reservations of others. There is a grey area but I accept that the Minister is unfortunately not going to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 is an alternative to amendment No. 2. These amendments may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"(3)The Minister may summarily prosecute an offence under this section.".
I tabled a similar amendment on Committee Stage in an attempt to give the Bill more teeth. The implementation of most of the legislation dealing with this issue will be a matter for local authorities under the other Bill. However, I felt it was important to include some powers of enforcement in this legislation. The Minister accepted the principle of what I was seeking to achieve and agreed to consider her own amendment which I will accept.
I thank the Senator. We discussed this issue on Committee Stage and I agreed in principle with the purpose of his amendment. I stated that I would table an amendment and I have consulted with the Attorney General on the wording. I commend amendment No. 3 to the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 6, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"(3)Proceedings in respect of a summary offence under this section may be brought and prosecuted by the Minister.".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister for initiating this important legislation in this House. We can be proud of this fact, notwithstanding the merits of the arguments which have, in some instances, been lost. However, the country has gained and I commend the Minister for giving the House an opportunity to consider the legislation first. Let us hope the Bill will have an easy passage in the other House as a result of the deliberations in this House.
I agree with Senator Mooney and compliment the Minister for the courteous and skilful manner in which she steered the Bill through the House.
I compliment Senators for their commitment to the Bill and I enjoyed the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 3.55 p.m. and resumed at 4 p.m.