Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Thursday, 28 Apr 1994

SECTION 12.

Mr. Creed

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 9, subsection (1), line 5, to delete "The Commissioners may establish and maintain" and substitute "The Minister shall ensure that there will be established and maintained".

The Minister proposes to establish the heritage council on a statutory basis. It is desirable that monuments would be recorded on a register so there is merit in this amendment. I am conscious that the last register I proposed to be established in this Bill was not supported by the Minister. However, such a record should be compiled. I have changed the wording from "The Commissioners" to "The Minister" in the context of pending legislation for the heritage council which may be the responsibility of his Department. It is the principle rather than the specifics of this amendment on which I am anxious to hear the Minister's views.

Mr. M. Higgins

I take the point made by Deputy Creed. The effect of this is to shift the responsibility of the Commissioners to the Minister but I want ease and efficiency in terms of getting it done. The Commissioners would compile the register and maintain and exhibit monuments in a prescribed manner. It is they who would be dealing with landowners etc. I will look at it between now and Report Stage to see if the mechanism can be improved though I cannot give a commitment because I do not know if I can address this issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.

Mr. Creed

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 9, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) When the owner or occupier (being the Commissioners) of a monument or place which has been recorded under subsection (1) of this section or any person proposes to carry out, or to cause or permit the carrying out of, any work at or in relation to such monument or place, he shall give notice in writing of his proposal to carry out the work to the relevant local authority and shall not, except in the case of urgent necessity and with the consent of the Minister, commence the work for a period of two months after having given the notice.".

The Commissioners departed from a procedure with which ordinary landowners would be obliged to comply.

Mr. M. Higgins

Will the Deputy bear in mind that I am putting the heritage council on a statutory footing? This Bill is not the appropriate place in which to make provision for the Commissioners and other owners of recorded monuments to notify the relevant local authorities of proposed works. The Planning Act is the proper place for such procedures. If I accepted this amendment, the landowner which the Deputy wishes to assist, could find himself having to deal with the same local authority under two different codes of legislation — the Planning Act and the national monuments legislation. Under the planning regulations the planning authority is obliged to consult with the monuments advisory body in the vicinity of the monument. While there is no advisory body at present that is what is contained in the planning regulations. By putting the heritage council on a statutory footing, I will be able to address that vacuum. I ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Creed

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 9, subsection (5), line 28, after "device" to insert "other than such devices when used on agricultural machinery for safety purposes".

The Minister may well believe at this stage that we are prisoners of the concerns of landowners, but this is important legislation and I am anxious that it be balanced. This is a very practical amendment. The Minister may be unaware of the enormous damage that can be done to agricultural machinery when harvesters pick up metal objects. It can cause thousands of pounds worth of damage and agricultural contractors lose a great deal of time carrying out repairs. In recent years, metal detectors have been attached to agricultural machinery to detect, in advance of the harvester, any metal objects which may damage the harvester. This important simple technical amendment is self-explanatory. These detectors are not used to pillage or to interfere with national monuments. If the Minister feels this is not suitably worded I would ask him to consider it for Report Stage.

Mr. M. Higgins

I appreciate the Deputy's point and wish to address it in the same spirit in which he moved it. It was never intended that people using an attachment for the protection of agricultural machinery would be caught under the terms of the Bill. I assure the Deputy that my understanding of the Bill, and the advice I have taken on it, is that detection devices, for instance an attachment to a combine harvester, would be defined in terms of the main machine and its agricultural purpose. The Deputy's fears are unfounded given that definition. In order to give further assurance, I will look at the matter again to ensure that my interpretation is airtight.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 12 agreed to.

Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Creed

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 10, before section 16, to insert the following new section:

"16.—Section 2 of the Act of 1987 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (6):

‘(6) Where in a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) (a) of this section, it is proved that a detection device was being used it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the device was being used for the purpose of searching for archaeological objects.'.".

The legislation does not clearly state that a presumption of guilt on the part of any person using a metal detector will only be made in those areas protected by law. In theory, a person searching with a metal detector for modern coinage on a beach could be accused of searching for archaeological objects and be unable to furnish proof of innocence. The Metal Detector Society of Ireland have lost many members because ordinary citizens do not wish to have their motivation called into question by the Garda whilst harmlessly coin searching in an archaeologically unimportant area. Divers are similarly concerned. The vast majority of divers have been of assistance to the Director of the National Museum in searching for archaeological objects. If this Bill is passed it will authorise a garda to seize a detector in any of three areas protected in section 2 (1) (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) in the 1987 amendment, but would not empower a garda to seize a detector in any other area. This lends weight to the argument that the authorities do not intend to harass detector users in archaeologically unimportant areas but the 1987 amendment should have made the same distinction as does this amendment.

Mr. M. Higgins

I have great sympathy for people unintentionally affected by a definition of activity relating to the use of metal detectors. I said this before, but I have to balance that against the obligation to protect not just listed sites. The 1987 Act referred to the site of which the Commissioners or the authority are the owners or guardians, the archaeological area listed in the register and the restricted area. This amendment would limit the Act to these three areas. The difficulty is that Deputy Creed is saying that everything with potential should be protected from abuse by users of metal detectors. I know what Deputy Creed is trying to say, but I cannot accept this limitation without putting potential sites and objects at even more risk. On the question of restriction, if I found an appropriate wording I would have included it. Deputy Creed's amendment would confine the Bill to what had been listed and discovered anything that came up would be open to anybody to use with whatever equipment in whatever manner. It is a matter of trying to find a balance between controls. That should answer the point.

Through this committee, and Deputy Creed's amendment, I would address the metal detector community and association. I never said I automatically presumed them guilty. They have been of assistance to the National Museum in the past. They will appreciate, from their meetings with the museum and others, that we need some protection. This section only deals with circumstances where an offence under section 2 of the 1987 Act is committed. It is quite limited. I cannot concede the point in the amendment, but I will try to find a way in which I could make it more specific. I am not sure that I can because I have to be able to prevent an abuse. In the interest of the public I cannot confine protection to what is already protected. If Deputy Creed would limit it to section 2(1) (a)(i), (ii) and (iii) in the National Monuments Act, 1987 I would be willing to look at a text to see if I can address that. At the same time people want to have some freedom and I do not want them to damage sites.

Mr. Creed

I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendment at this stage but the debate is welcome even from the point of view of airing the views of the Minister, the Department and us that the vast majority of people who operate metal detectors and the Metal Detecting Society of Ireland are law abiding and have been of valuable assistance to the Director of the National Museum and to professional archaeologists. It is an extraordinarily difficult issue to resolve in terms of finding a formula of words that do not prevent the Minister from effectively preserving sites. I am willing to withdraw the amendment on the Minister's undertaking that he will look at it between now and Report Stage. The debate has been worthwhile even for the purpose of recording our appreciation of the assistance which metal detector users have given and recognising their positive contribution.

Mr. M. Higgins

I will not accept the existing 1987 limits. I will try to make this point between now and Report Stage. I appreciate Deputy Creed's withdrawal of the amendment and also the fact that we all share a wish that nobody should feel maligned in any way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.