Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Nov 1994

Vol. 446 No. 7

Heritage Council Bill, 1994 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

As regards the national folk collection, to the best of my knowledge the major artefacts are stored in the former reformatory at Daingean in County Offaly and are not available to the public. The Minister indicated that he intends to introduce a national museums Bill and I presume such matters will be covered under it. There is urgent need to collate and publish archive material. I am sure most of it is not properly indexed.

Local authorities are often criticised regarding heritage matters. In recent years, due to financial constraints, they have not been able to look after important major buildings in their ownership. However, they have attempted to preserve these buildings by and large.

It was interesting to listen to Deputies refer to the heritage in their areas; an inventory was given of the heritage in counties Cavan, Wexford and others. There was also a reference to the Ring Gaeltacht in County Waterford and the increased interest in the Irish language.

Tremendous work has been carried out on the restoration of Ennis Abbey in County Clare. Relatively modest sums of money have been spent in restoring this dilapidated abbey to a very beautiful building which can now be visited by the public. The excellent lighting system installed in the abbey has considerably improved its appearance.

There are numerous examples of co-operation between local communities and national bodies in refurbishing national monuments and improving access to them. One example which springs to mind is Corcomroe Abbey in the Burren. There was virtually no access to the abbey until the county council, in co-operation with local people, spent a substantial amount in improving access. The abbey is now readily accessible and is on the visitor attraction list of many people. Work is also being carried out on Quin Abbey which is a beautiful building and I hope this type of work will continue.

The local authority in County Clare has experienced difficulties in maintaining large buildings, specifically courthouses. I am not sure of the precise situation in regard to funding, but an undertaking was given two years ago that responsibility for funding these buildings would be taken over by the State. There are several fine courthouses in the county and the ones with which I am most familiar are in Ennis, Tulla and Killaloe. The Ennis courthouse is still used by the county council and is maintained at enormous cost. The dilapidated Tulla courthouse had a certain amount of money spent on it recently while the Killaloe courthouse has been vacant for a considerable period. I understand that local people intend to take an initiative in regard to the Killaloe courthouse. This is the type of initiative An Comhairle Oidhreachta could support with advice, finance and encouragement.

Michael Cusack, the founder of the GAA, was born in Carron, County Clare. Some years ago his house was renovated by the GAA at a very considerable cost. Despite excellent access, this house has been virtually closed for the past two years. This part of our national heritage should be preserved by way of a substantial State input and it is unfortunate that having restored the house it should now be a fairly heavy burden on the GAA in County Clare.

The county council has attempted to carry out preservation and restoration works at the Cliffs of Moher and to erect extra buildings. While the vast majority of people support and welcome work of this nature, the people who appear to get the most coverage are stridently opposed to elements of what is proposed. It will be interesting to see whether An Comhairle Oidhreachta can adjudicate on contentious matters. From my experience of such matters, I would not wish this job on my worst enemy. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to have these matters addressed by an independent body. I referred to the national folk collection, part of which could be displayed at the Bunratty Folk Park. A group in Ennis put forward very specific proposals in this regard and will provide a premises in which the collection can be properly shown.

There was a reference to the excellent work carried out by local heritage bodies, archaeological and historical societies, etc. The Clare Heritage Centre in Corofin, my native village, has been very successful and made much information available to the descendants of people who emigrated to Australia during the Famine. This type of local effort demands substantial resources and it is very difficult to establish centres which will continue to fund themselves. Last week there was a reference to the statement by the Kerry County Enterprise Board that there is an over-proliferation of such centres. As Deputy Deasy said, local connection with people in other parts of the world must be preserved and developed. An Comhairle Oidhreachta will have a difficult task if it takes on this job.

A fairly important stone object has disappeared from the graveyard in the grounds of the old church in Gleninagh. I also understand that a very important grave slab was damaged during the installation of a new headstone at the old church in Kilnaboy. It is very difficult for a heritage council or other national body to ensure that relatively small stone objects are not removed from graveyards or that people do not damage artefacts. Nevertheless, it is important that they make a definite attempt to do so.

Deputy Brendan Smith referred to the substantial level of funding for natural and cultural tourism under the tourism operational programme. A sum of £25 million will be administered by the Minister's Department and I presume An Comhairle Oidhreachta will have a very specific role in determining the projects to be grant-aided under the programme. There is a proposal to construct a large folk music centre in County Clare. The people involved in this project have spoken to me and have been in contact with the Department. Music is a very important part of our heritage and must be preserved, encouraged and made available to the public and visitors. I would like to see this type of centre developed in an area with a very strong folk music tradition. Nobody would take on County Clare in this regard with any great hope of success.

I am also interested in the EU heritage conservation programme under which specific projects are funded each year. To the best of my knowledge the performing arts were covered under this programme in 1994 while the 1995 programme will support the restoration of religious objects in churches etc. I am interested in hearing if the council will disburse funding for such projects under the cultural action of DG10.

Our national games are also part of our heritage. The GAA has successfully developed these games which have proven to be very lucrative. This area comes under threat from time to time and it may require specific support in certain areas. I referred earlier to the Irish language which to some extent has its own national body. Many people work on a voluntary basis to support the development of the language and I would like them to be given more support than they have been given up to now.

Fáiltím go láidir roimh an mBille. Ceapaim go bhfuil ionadh ar a lán Teachtaí, agus b'fhéidir ar an Aire féin, go bhfuilim á mholadh faoi rudaí áirithe. I ndáiríre, is beag an chúis eachrainn a bhíonn eadrainn de ghnáth agus tréaslaím leis as an méid oibre atá déanta aige féin agus ag a Roinn sa ghnó atá idir láimhe acu. Táim ag súil le Bille eile uaidh ar chúrsaí leabharanna, nár luaigh mé in aon chor, agus ar chúrsaí fhioslanna, a luaigh mé. Táim cinnte go n-éireoidh leis córas dlí iomlán, láidir a bhunú faoin Roinn Ealaíon, Cultúir agus Gaeltachta.

Before I say anything about the Bill we should establish whether we have a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

On the face of it, this Bill sets out to put in place a number of measures to improve the protection of our heritage and to promote our knowledge and understanding of it. Those are objectives we would all support but on closer inspection I find the Bill has a number of objectionable features which I intend to examine. It could fairly be described as a rather vainglorious exercise in unfettered ministerial control when we come to look at the schedule that deals with the Heritage Council. I know the Minister does not want it called a Heritage Council; he wants it called An Comhairle Oidhreachta. If so why did he not have one Irish title on the Bill and leave out the rest?

When we look at it we find that it is a vehicle designed to give the Minister total control over who will be on this council and a substantial degree of control over what it does. That is in keeping with the Minister's character. We should ask the Minister — perhaps the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy O'Shea, would convey this to him — to reflect a little more on how vulnerable he is when he goes about that.

I recall one of the contributions by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, to the culture and heritage of future generations. It was a little poem published in that weird and wonderful interval between the last general election and the moment the Labour Party finally succumbed to the seductions and blandishments of Fianna Fáil — a surrender the Labour Party has come to regret because it discovered very quickly that Fianna Fáil did not respect it the following morning and has not shown much respect for it ever since.

The Minister, Deputy Higgins, had previously written a poem which was sharp observation of what goes on when a Minister for Education — a woman — goes to visit a school. I do not know which Minister for Education he meant, whether it was the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment or a previous Minister for Education. One of the sharp observations in the poem was the instruction by the nun in charge of the assembled children: "Clap, children, clap", as the Minister gets out of her car. It may be that the Minister regrets having had that poem published. From observation I can tell the House that there is no time the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht blossoms so well as when he arrives at a venue to be welcomed with rapturous applause by a crowd of leftwing Labour Party psychophants masquerading as literary or cultural glitterai. We find the same type of bombast in the Minister's speech.

I looked to the Minister's speech in search of more substance than the total diktat of ministerial control but I did not find it. Instead, I find even less enlightenment about how this Bill will operate than I do in the Bill. In his introductory speech the Minister described Oidhreacht as follows:

"Oidhreacht" should not be seen as a purely passive concept; it can also be an instrument of economic development if the linkages between development and the social and cultural patterns of the community are sensitively made.

I read that a second time and I said: "Mother of God"— or words to that effect — what does that mean? What are the linkages between development and the social and cultural patterns of the community? What are they and how are they to be sensitively made rather than made in any other way? The Minister goes on to talk about building an awareness of heritage among the Irish people and goes on to define it a little more as follows:

This is a kind of generic heritage or cultural policy which has an economic consequence that is beneficial. This is my new approach to heritage. It is not simply a matter of seeing these places as tourist centres or as magnets but rather as places of immense interest which people locally know and respect and want to share with other people.

This is the kind of generic heritage the Minister is talking about. I have news for the Minister. If the Minister thinks that that is a new approach to heritage he has another think coming. That has been the approach of most of us to heritage for a long time. The rest of us will welcome the Minister on board if he means it when he says: "This is my new approach to heritage". That is how most of us have always seen it and the Minister has not said anything particularly new. He goes on to speak about the central role of his Department in relation to the development of policy on decentralisation and the implementation of that policy. This is in his introduction to a Bill which puts entirely in the hands of the Minister the appointment of An Chomhairle Oidhreachta, the appointment of a substantial proportion of the members of the two standing committees of that council and the firing of members of that council.

Those reflections make a nonsense of what the Minister bombastically claims to be his new policy on heritage and his decentralised approach to its implementation. The Minister let his slip show once or twice during his speech. I read carefully the passage in which he referred to the Office of Public Works and concluded that the battle between the Minister and the Minister of State and the Office of Public Works has not been resolved. There is probably a more active and bloody war going on in the background over that piece of turf than the Minister is prepared to admit in public.

Will he explain his definition of heritage? He defined it as including "all those elements of Irish life today which have survived from the past and whose continuing survival into future generations depends on the attitudes and actions of the present". That is quite a mouthful. I have heard the Minister say on other occasions that there are elements of Irish life today — if I may borrow his words — which have survived from the past and which he would like to eradicate. When the Minister was giving us a bombastic account of this jackboot type Bill, in terms of the appointment of members of the council, he forgot all that.

The Deputy should give the source of his quotation.

It is in the Minister's script.

I am referring to the Deputy's last quotation.

This man wants to be one of the cultural revolutionaries of our country when it suits him and when it is what the audience wants to hear, but in terms of this Bill he is an ardent and enthusiastic conservative. The Minister should be more careful about how he presents such matters because he is not doing any service to the concept of heritage — which this Bill is supposed to help us promote, cherish and hand on to future generations — by that type of nonsense.

The Deputy's legacy as Minister for Finance was not so impressive.

I may be annoying the Minister.

That is not true.

What price your little poem now about the nun telling the children to clap, clap, clap when the Minister arrives?

I will go back to the Deputy's period as Minister for Finance and the fine legacy of neglect at that time.

Deputy Dukes, without interruption, and perhaps the Deputy in possession would address his comments through the Chair, it would be less provocative.

There is nothing more designed to put us off what the Minister is doing than the self important strutting in which he engaged in introducing the Bill.

This is the new abusive Fine Gael imported sleaze.

It is not sleaze, the Minister's comments are a sham and his presentation is so out of keeping with the subject, it is not credible.

One could run a seminar on the strutting the Deputy goes on with, that is why he is on the backbenches.

I object to this Government, who claims to want openness, consultation and partnership, introducing legislation which leaves the hiring and firing of every member of a heritage council in the hands of the Minister without provision for consultation with anybody else. That is contrary to what was provided for in the two previous Acts which the Minister is proposing to repeal in this Bill.

The central instrument of this newly discovered heritage policy — something which the Minister has newly discovered but about which the rest of us have always known — is to be called An Chomhairle Oidhreachta. The Government has chosen a peculiar way of going about this. The Bill makes An Chomhairle Oidhreachta the personal fief of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. On reading the Schedule, which sets out the function and method of appointment of An Chomhairle Oidhreachta, I was amazed at how it will be set up. Paragraph 1 (2) of the Schedule states "The chairperson and the ordinary members shall be appointed by the Minister". He has a great penchant for appointing people with whom he has been friendly in the past and who share a good deal of his philosophical orientations. Paragraph 2 (2) of the Schedule states, "Each member of the council shall be a person who, in the opinion of the Minister, has an interest in or knowledge or experience of or in relation to the national heritage". Again, the appointment of members of the council will depend entirely on the Minister. How will he exercise that function? Other Members expressed the hope that the Minister will appoint suitable qualified people who empathise with what the Bill proposes, but the Bill does not contain a requirement to that effect. The Minister can appoint any cat, dog or devil he likes.

Let us examine the qualifications that are involved. People in the opinion of the Minister, have an interest in or knowledge or experience of or in relation to the national heritage will be appointed. That could involve the 3.6 million people who live in the Republic or 5 million if the Minister extends it to the population of the entire island. I would qualify for a position on the council as I have an interest in, a knowledge and experience of and in relation to our national heritage. The Bill does not guide us in relation to the type of people the Minister will appoint to the council, nor will this House have control over the people he appoints. This will be a fiefdom of the Minister.

Paragraph 5 of the Schedule states that the Minister may, at any time, remove from office the chairperson or any member of the council, or any person appointed by the Minister to a committee of the council where such removal appears necessary for the effective performance by the council — or committee — of its functions. To whom must it appear necessary? Does that mean it must appear necessary to the Minister? That provision allows the Minister to fire members of An Comhairle Oidhreachta or the standing committees if in his view it is necessary to remove such persons for the effective performance by the council, or a committee, of its functions. That is entirely arbitrary. The Minister does not have to explain it to An Chomhairle Oidhreachta, to his Department, to this House or to the public. When one recalls some of the Minister's comments about people who do not agree with him, members of An Chomhairle Oidhreachta who hold a different view from that of the Minister had better watch out because this provision gives the Minister unfettered and unqualified power to fire such persons from the board. The Minister may shake his head, but he objects to hired guns in Sunday newspapers having the temerity to disagree with his party in Government.

That is not true.

He is one of the people who stated that we need a press council and that the press had better come up with something like that. He had not shown tolerance for people who hold a different view to him.

Is the Deputy against a press council?

I am concerned that the heritage council will be entirely in the hands and at the bidding of the Minister. That contrasts with what was done in the past.

Section 4 of this Bill repeals section 4 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987, which set up the Historic Monuments Council. Before Committee Stage I should like the Minister to re-read the Act and reflect on it because section 4 (3) sets out the balance of membership of the Historic Monuments Council and a list of bodies from among whose representatives members of that council would be selected. They include the three Colleges of the National University, Trinity College, Dublin, Queen's University in Belfast, Bord Fáilte Éireann, the Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland and the Maritime Institute of Ireland. These people are to be consulted. Just before that there is a list of representatives — members of the council who shall be appointed from time to time as occasion requires by the Minister and shall consist of a representative each of the Taoiseach, the Minister for the Marine, the Minister for the Environment and the Commissioners, which I take to be a reference to the Commissioners of Public Works. Therefore, there was consultation in the case of one of the bodies to be replaced by this new council.

It is proposed in section 4 of this Bill to repeal section 13 of the Wildlife Act, 1976, the Act which established the Wildlife Advisory Council but which did not go as far in terms of consultation and involvement of other bodies as one might have wished. Of course, the Labour Party was in Government with a different partner when that Act was passed, a partner that did not seem to kick it in the teeth quite as often as Fianna Fáil seems to do now. Section 13 (6) of Wildlife Act, 1976, states: "Before making an order under this section which contains provisions relating to the constitution of the Council, the Minister shall consult any other Minister of State or a body established by or regulated under statute considered by the Minister to be concerned."

The provisions of that Act also provided for consultation. In fact those two Acts provided avenues by which the Minister of the day would consult and be at least advised by, if not guided by, something other than the particular manifestation of the Holy Spirit that descended on him. The Minister present does not need any Holy Spirit; he does not need any consultation; he does not need advice from anybody else, he will do it all himself, will appoint and fire members of the council as it pleases him. I do not like that, not because I distrust the Minister personally — I disagree with him about many things, I am sure he will make choices with which I will not agree, and I do not impute any bad motives to him — but his record makes me worry. I find it incredible that a Government that pays so much lip service to open Government, to consultation, to partnership should come into this House and advance a proposal of this kind for setting up such a personal fiefdom of any Minister, especially, when the Minister in question has never been beaten for the piousity with which he can present his ideas to the general public. I do not like that provision. I find that part of this Bill entirely objectionable and would like the Minister to seriously reflect on it before Committee Stage.

I will, and I will talk about the Deputy's piousity.

I am only trotting after the Minister. I would not even pretend to compete with the Minister on that. I can assure him that my ego does not need any of the kind of props he is giving himself here.

Look where it brought the Deputy.

Section 10 deals with the action, or approach to be taken by An Comhairle Oidhreachta to heritage buildings owned by a public authority, which is entirely commendable. If this section becomes law, can the Minister tell us whether it will save Longford courthouse? Will he be able to prevent Longford County Council from doing something dreadful to Longford courthouse? If not I urge the Minister to talk to his partners in Government, and get them to stop their local yahoos from sealing the fate of that building. I know there are problems about who owns, or who has rights to part of its basement, which delicacy forbids me from trespassing on here. Will the Minister tell us whether that is one of the problems that might be solved if the provisions of this section are implemented?

In his speech the Minister referred to another of my concerns. Immediately on reading that section I wondered whether there was any provision for what might be done in respect of heritage buildings not in public ownership. What the Minister had to say about that was that it was too complex a matter to be gone into now, that he would have to think about it again in the future. I urge the Minister to give it rapid consideration, to ask his manifestation of the Holy Spirit to advise him on it fairly quickly because a few important matters arise about which other Members have spoken. I shall not repeat their comments.

I might add a few reflections, including one that occurs to me immediately. On my frequent drives to Limerick I pass somewhere near Borris-in-Ossory — I cannot remember the name of the townland — an old Norman castle keep, probably a 12th or 13th century building that for some time had been integrated into a farmyard, or a farmyard built around it. I had the pleasure of talking to its owners on the last occasion there was a by-election in Laoighis-Offaly. In recent years that castle keep has been restored and a great deal of work done to it. It has been fitted out and furnished inside in a manner representing the period in which it was constructed and is open to the public. That is entirely commendable. I am sure the Minister sees a good many of them in his constituency and in the southern part of the country —Dal Gcais is littered with them.

There are many places where one will find today an old Norman keep, usually a tower building, where the original bawn has become a farmyard. To my inexpert eye many of them, externally at least, are in reasonably sound physical condition but nothing remains of the interior. They are all private property. A great many people who own such buildings would quail at the thought of what would be required to be spent to make anything of them. The Minister knows that in his constituency a number of such keeps have been fitted out as places of entertainment, even as private residences, and it costs a lot of money to do it. A great many of them are extant on our landscape. An effort should be made at least to preserve what remains of them, if not to restore them to their original condition. There is a difficulty in that they are now private property but that is something on which we should act fairly quickly.

If the Minister is worried about heritage buildings, now private property and their preservation perhaps he would talk to his colleague, the Minister for Finance, and endeavour to persuade him to adopt a more flexible view of the tax concessions being given for the upkeep of such buildings. A change was effected in this year's Finance Act which was not as draconian as that originally proposed but still constitutes a burden on some of the owners of those houses who find them very difficult to maintain but which they must do to gain the tax advantage given, quite rightly, to preserve the fabric of those buildings.

I would also like the Minister to speak to his colleague in charge of law reform and repeat to him most urgently, and as sincerely as he can manage, what other Members of the House have said to him today, which I fully support, about the Occupiers' Liability Bill. The Bill published is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the problem. Nor is it a satisfactory way of dealing with the problem faced by landowners who have historic monuments or other objects on their lands which people want to see and which we would all want to see if we succeed in joining the Minister in his rather pretentious crusade to make the linkages between development and the social and cultural patterns of the community sensitively. Some day I must ask the Minister to explain just what he meant by that; it is a dreadful piece of literary gunge.

A number of definitions in the Bill puzzle me. If the Minister could explain them a little now it might save us much time on Committee Stage. In the definition of "archaeology" there is a reference to buildings or parts of buildings habitually used for ecclesiastical purposes. I wonder why habitual use for ecclesiastical purposes is particularly mentioned. Could the Minister explain why the definition of "fauna" includes only "fish and such aquatic invertebrate animals of a species specified in regulations under section 3 of the Wildlife Act"? Why is it limited in that way? It is not obvious that it is entirely necessary to do that. Again we come back to the question of the use of buildings for ecclesiastical purposes in the definition of a monument. The definition of a monument, if I follow it correctly, does not include any building or part of any building habitually used for ecclesiastical purposes.

Is it wise to define a wildlife habitat as "the ecological environment in which particular organisms and communities thereof thrive"? Given that so many of these habitats are under threat, we should define those habitats for the purposes of the action contemplated here, as places where those organisms or communities thereof live rather than thrive, because there could be arguments about thriving. There are some places where some of the organisms or colonies are not thriving, where they are in danger of extinction and where, if we are serious about what is set out in this Bill, we should be trying to preserve them from extinction.

The final point, and I would like to conclude on this because it is the one point on which I feel I can unambiguously and honestly congratulate the Minister, is that I am delighted to see that where this Bill makes provision for orders to be made it uses the procedure under which drafts of orders are submitted to the two Houses of the Oireachtas, and the order is not made until the Houses of the Oireachtas have actually approved them. The Minister is right to go down that road. I commend him on it and I hope that part of the Minister's thinking — not the rest, God forbid — will spread rapidly to his colleagues in Cabinet. Then we might begin to get something like the democracy which the Government likes to give itself the appearance of.

Later I will say something about Deputy Dukess' negative performance.

I welcome the Bill and commend the Minister on putting the protection of our national heritage on a statutory footing. I am particularly glad that the Minister is proposing to establish standing committees under the new legislation to deal with the protection of our wildlife and wildlife habitats.

Ireland has, in recent years, developed a very unsavoury reputation for blood sports of a particularly cruel kind relating to some of our wild animals and birds. Badger-baiting, foxhunting, hare coursing, the blooding of greyhounds with live rabbits and cockfighting are gruesome activities. Indeed, tonight the BBC "Spotlight" programme is showing a documentary on Northern Ireland which relates how fighting cocks and spurs are sold in Smithfield at the monthly horse fair in my constituency. These activities are indefensible and I trust that the new council will tackle them as a matter of urgency.

Buildings, monuments, archaeological objects, the landscape, the flora and fauna have been damaged through wilful neglect.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn