Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Feb 1930

Vol. 33 No. 1

Public Business. - National Monuments Bill, 1929—From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Bourke)

I move that the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1, which reads:—

Section 2. The word "cave" deleted in line 32 and the words "natural cave and any" substituted therefor.

The effect of the amendment would be to substitute the natural caves for caves that give evidence of having been inhabited by human beings. The amendment would defeat the whole object of having the word "caves" inserted in the definition, because it is only in so far as caves have an archæological or cultural interest that they are brought within the scope of this Bill. I accordingly ask the Committee not to agree with the amendment.

Mr. Fahy

The Parliamentary Secretary has given a reasonable explanation as to his refusal to accept the amendment.

Question—"That the Committee disagree with the amendment made by the Seanad"—agreed to.

Mr. Bourke

Amendment 2 is consequential, and I move that the Committee disagrees with this amendment also. It reads:—

Section 2. After the word "artistic" in line 43 the word "geological" inserted.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Bourke

I beg to move that the Committee agree with amendment 3 inserted by the Seanad. The amendment reads:—

Section 2. All after the word "of" in line 8 deleted down to the end of the section and the following words substituted therefor:—"the archaeological interest attaching thereto or of its association with any Irish historical event or person has a value substantially greater than its intrinsic (including artistic) value, and the said expression includes ancient human and animal remains and does not include treasure trove in which the rights of the State have not been waived."

There has been a considerable difficulty in getting agreement on this archæological definition. There was a long discussion in the Seanad on it. Eventually we arrived at an agreement by this particular amendment of the definition. It somewhat limits the definition as originally introduced. I have considered it advisable to accept this amendment as it stands.

Mr. Fahy

As the Parliamentary Secretary says, the new terminology was arrived at in the Seanad as a compromise, and it fairly meets the case.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bourke

I beg to move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment, which reads:—

Section 22, sub-section (3). Before the word "architecture" in line 17 the words "or interest in" inserted.

In the original draft of the Bill we laid down rather stringent rules for admitting members to local Committees. It might be very difficult to get sufficient men to form those Committees if we insisted on such drastic terms. This amendment will make it easier for the local people to become members of those Committees, and accordingly I ask the Committee to accept the amendment.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Mr. Bourke

I ask the Committee to agree with the Seanad in amendment 5, which reads:—

Section 23, sub-section (1). The following words added at the end of the sub-section: "and shall permit any member of the Gárda Síochána or the said Keeper to inspect, examine or photograph such object."

I believe this is an improvement on the Bill as originally drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bourke

I beg to move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 6, which reads:—

New Section. Before section 25 a new section inserted as follows:

"25.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to injure, deface or destroy any archaeological object, nor shall it be lawful for any person to alter any archæological object otherwise than under and in accordance with a licence in that behalf granted under this section.

(2) The Minister for Education may if he thinks fit issue to any person a licence to alter a specified archæological object in such manner, to such extent and subject to such conditions as are specified in such licence.

(3) Every person who injures, defaces, destroys or alters an archæological object in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment."

This amendment means adding a new section and it brings the archæological objects into line with the national monuments, as regards putting restrictions on any interference with them and preventing their destruction. I think it is quite a usual thing to have very valuable objects of antiquarian interest discovered and afterwards to find these destroyed or melted down. At present, there is no penalty imposed for their destruction. This amendment will impose a penalty. At the same time, it gives power to the Minister for Education, if he thinks fit, to issue a licence to alter a specified archaeological object.

Mr. Fahy

It seems to me that the suggested new section is covered by Section 14, and some other sections of the Bill as it stands. However, if the Parliamentary Secretary holds that this amendment amplifies Section 14 and will strengthen the hands of the Government in preventing vandalism, there is no objection to it. We agree with the Parliamentary Secretary in adopting the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Reported that the Committee disagreed with the Seanad in amendments 1 and 2, and agreed with the Seanad in amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Report agreed to.

Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.