I welcome the Bill. Having made my maiden speech on the 1987 Bill and having contributed on that same Bill in the Seanad, I am familiar with the recent legislation relating to the preservation of our monuments. The central provision of this Bill is to make a clear statement regarding the right of ownership of archaeological objects found. These will be deemed to be the property of the State where there is no known owner and such finds will have to be reported to the Director of the National Museum. The possession, sale and acquisition of archaeological objects will be prohibited after the enactment of this Bill unless the State has waived its rights to ownership.
In preparation for the debate on the 1987 Bill I looked at other legislation. I notice similarities between this and the Swedish legislation where all monuments are State owned. The Swedish were ahead of the rest of the world in providing legislation to protect their monuments as far back as 1666 when Charles XI introduced comprehensive legislation which gave Sweden a head start on heritage preservation. The Bill moves us closer to that ideal.
The Bill also proposes to empower the Commissioners of Public Works to establish a record of national monuments and sites where they believe national monuments may be located so that every known national monument in the country will be afforded basic protection. That is welcome because, despite having more monuments and artfacts than most other countries in western Europe, our record of preservation and conservation has been dismal, and we have been guilty of wide ranging destruction and general carelessness. It was no surprise when it came to light that we were losing artefacts to treasure hunters — and some of our monuments — as the Acts of 1930 and 1954 were never fully enforced because of lack of personnel.
Indeed there is concern that there is no provision in this Bill for extra personnel to enforce its provisions, and unless they are provided and there is a general awareness by the public about this legislation it will be useless. I am a member of the Kerry Monuments Advisory Committee which receives continuous reports about interference with and even removal of standing stones, ring forts and other field monuments. This has been going on since the 1987 Act came into effect, and nothing is being done about it.
The effectiveness of our legislation must be questioned. This Bill is a start in relation to objects found. However, it contains several loopholes and I fear for its effectiveness. Despite being fortunate to have one of the densest concentrations of surviving archaeological field monuments of any country in western Europe, in recent years thousands have been lost, particularly since we joined the EU, and most of this destruction was carried out with the help of EU and Government-sponsored grant schemes. It sickens me to see the EU now introducing a scheme to preserve old buildings and archaeological remains on farms when they were the major contributors to the destruction of so many monuments. The same applies to Government schemes for land reclamation. In fairness to farmers, they were not aware of what they had on their land and they were given carte blanche to remove, in the name of progress, whatever earthworks were in their way. It has taken until now for the EU to realise the folly of their money being used to destroy the heritage of its member states.
Until recently only a small number of all known monuments were specifically protected under the National Monuments Acts of 1930 and 1954. In most cases the Commissioners of Public Works had neither the manpower nor the financial resources to administer these Acts vigorously and effectively. The same could be said of the 1987 Act. I have given examples of that in relation to Kerry. Denmark, a country half the size of Ireland with about 25,000 prehistoric monuments in State care, shows what can be done by effective legislation. Here, the limited number of professional archaeologists employed by the State to protect its archaeological heritage means that the destruction of archaeological earthworks, which can be removed in half a day, can be carried out with almost certain immunity. This is happening on a continuous basis.
In a recent Ph.D thesis Barrett found that in the Dingle area of Kerry 44 per cent of all known ring forts had been removed since 1841. As there are still about 2,000 field monuments left in the Dingle peninsula it means that nearly 2,000 field monuments have been removed. Also, the Department of Archaeology in UCC found that 66 per cent of the ring forts mapped in the 1840s in the Cork Harbour area have been destroyed. This has probably increased to at least 75 per cent in the five or six years since that study was carried out. A survey by Cahill of the 455 ring forts in the middle third of County Tipperary revealed a destruction rate of 31.5 per cent. I was alarmed to see the destruction rate of mediaeval moated sites, rectangular earthworks, mainly of the 13th and 14th centuries. In the early 1970s, calculating for the four counties Carlow, Kilkenny, Tipperary and Wexford, Barry found that in total 52 per cent of all well known moated sites had either been completely removed or greatly modified since the 1840s. Although most farmers are aware of the existence of ring forts on their land, if only as fairy forts, this is not necessarily so in the case of other earthworks. Out of a total of 750, approximately 20 moated sites are protected by current legislation. Three of those were levelled in the past ten years but, needless to say, there were no prosecutions. That puts into perspective the problem.
In regard to portable monuments, last August the Cromdubh Monument in Clahene, Castlegregory, was stolen. That monument, the head of a pagan God, is unique but there was not a national outcry about its disappearance. Efforts to highlight the robbery were not heeded and the monument has not been found. Stone crosses and other valuable standing stones should be taken into local churches or museums and replicas erected in their place. Over time many of those stone crosses and standing stones will become weathered because they are made from limestone and people would understand that in order to preserve the real object it must be taken into care. Will the Minister address that matter in his reply?
The Bill refers to marine archaeology. In my contribution on the 1987 Bill I expressed concern about the destruction of the Blasket site off the Dingle coast and requested tighter controls on underwater diving in search of treasure. I referred extensively to our underwater heritage. I received a communication from concerned divers in regard to this legislation and I would like the Minister to address those concerns. Those divers are concerned in particular about section 7 (1) (b) which empowers the Garda to seize and detain without warrant, time limit or subsequent charge any diving equipment which they believe is about to be used in water protected by an underwater heritage order, a power unrelated to any offence in the Principal Act. According to those divers that provision is unusual and anti-diver. They believe it is wrong to seize equipment prior to an activity in the belief that an illegal act may take place.
The number of piers and harbours here is limited, but sports divers must depart from a pier several miles from a diving site. If their departure point is close to an underwater heritage area — even though they do not intend diving in that area — their equipment can be seized. The 1588Armada wreck, the San Marcos, lies off Quilty Pier in County Clare as does Mutton Island and associated reefs of scenic interest. As divers depart from such areas, could their equipment be seized under the provision of this legislation? Sports divers have assisted the Office of Public Works and the National Museum in underwater archaeological work at potential heritage sites. Such activity will now be illegal even though no sports diver has ever been charged with an infringement of the National Monuments Act, 1930. The proposed wide and arbitrary powers, based on an individual's objective belief, are draconian in the extreme.
Divers believe that power to be discriminatory and unwarranted. Will the Minister examine the restrictions on diving here? In Kerry local diving clubs are preparing for a special dive to examine the Santa Marie Del Roso. As we do not have the resources to pay people to carry out this work we should allow volunteers to carry it out in a professional manner under supervision.
The Santa Marie Del Roso was discovered in 110 feet of water near the Blaskets in 1968 by a team of divers led by Sydney Wignell. Many items were salvaged from the wreck, some of which were of immense value. Mr. Wignell promised that a maritime museum would be established in Dingle to display the artefacts, but that did not happen. The Minister stated recently that he intends establishing a maritime museum in Galway to display all the artefacts and remains of the Spanish Armada which foundered off the west coast. Will the Minister reconsider that proposal and instead display artefacts discovered off the Dingle coast in the fine heritage centre which will be officially opened in Dunquin next Wednesday? Similarly, artefacts from ships which sank off the Clare and Sligo coasts should be displayed in museums in those areas.
Section 6 (2) refers to the appointment of designated persons and places, but it is regrettable that county museums are not specifically mentioned. Operating as part of the National Museum network they would offer a real chance of making this Bill effective, as the only hope of implementing many of its provisions is at local rather than national level. Designating county museums would also alleviate some of the pressures on the staff and facilities of the National Museum as well as giving it a wider branch network. This was a missed opportunity. To be effective this legislation must have a major local input. Local community watch groups should be set up to ensure that monuments are not damaged and that when objects are discovered they are reported immediately to the authorities. That can only be done at local level. By the time the Director of the National Museum receives the information those valuable objects could be thousands of miles away.
Section 8 (2) refers to inspection and excavation by the Director of the National Museum. The right of the Director to nominate a person to enter any and all lands and undertake everything necessary to preserve or excavate a site in danger of destruction or decay is an important facet of this legislation. However, where a qualified archaeologist is on the staff of a local authority, those functions should be passed on to that official. That would enable the provisions of the Bill to be implemented locally in an effective manner. An archaeologist is employed in the county museum in Tralee, County Kerry. The Bill would be more effective if that archaeologist were given similar powers to those of the Director of the National Museum.
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 9 deal with power to take possession of an archaeological object. It would be more practical if that power was also conferred on local archaeologists and county museum curators who act in co-operation with and on behalf of the National Museum and the State as information on objects is often more accessible locally. Objects deemed by the director not to be of a significant archaeological or historical interest nationally should be retained locally by the State as they may be of great interest to county museums. Local museums should have an input in deciding on the location of objects found.
Section 11 deals with the acquisition of national monuments, etc., by the Commissioners. The Schedule dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land fails to address the legal complexities of rights of way and, more importantly, public liability insurance cover, which has resulted in many landowners refusing access to visitors to cross their land to national monument sites. Those issues should be addressed. I introduced a Private Members' Bill last year that would have resolved those problems but, unfortunately, it was rejected by the Government despite its support by several members of the Fianna Fáil Party. That legislation was clear-cut and it would have resolved landowners' difficulties regarding access to their property. Large areas of land on which national monuments are sited will be closed to tourists and there is a great deal of concern in that regard.
Section 12 (3) deals with work carried out by the landowner on land at or relating to a recorded monument and requires written notice of such work two months in advance. Lack of information available to the landowner regarding monuments on his or her property and legal obligations in respect of such sites pose problems and could be resolved by local campaigns assisted by the land agencies. Farm organisations could disseminate such information.
The provisions of the Bill must be implemented. We have a bad record on the conservation and preservation of many field monuments. Buildings are not covered under the Bill, but hopefully such legislation will be introduced shortly. Despite the lipservice paid to this Bill and other measures we are destroying our heritage and we must act in a serious and effective way if we are to preserve it.