Senator Browne was just reaching the conclusion of his speech on the last occasion. He was in the middle of a point about the pathway of his house with some county council machinery at the time the Chathaoirleach intervened to point out that we had reached the time of adjournment. Senator Browne does not wish to continue his journey.
National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
He is lucky to have something done.
Coming from a county like Kerry, which is rich in historical monuments and archaeological remains, I welcome this Bill. It is long overdue. It is also welcomed by people interested in the preservation and the continuation of our heritage. If the Bill succeeds in its principal objective, that is, in the control of metal detectors and in the provision of better protection for historical wrecks in our territorial waters and in setting up a register of national monuments, it will ensure that future generations can enjoy and appreciate our rich heritage and that the unnecessary destruction and vandalism of many of our national monuments and sites will cease.
I would like to refer briefly to previous legislation. The National Monuments Acts, 1930 and 1954 were never fully enforced. The powers given by those Acts were weak. As a result the number of protected monuments in Ireland is minimal. Denmark, for example, a country which is much smaller than Ireland, has approximately 25,000 pre-historic monuments conserved and preserved. The 1930 and 1954 Acts envisaged respect for private property, allowing the owner to act freely with structures on his property except, on the rare occasions when he would be restrained by the commissioners. As a result, we have lost many valuable monuments. This Bill goes some way towards reversing this position.
Under the new legislation a monument or archaeological area listed on the proposed new register of historical monuments may be recorded by the Land Registry at the Registry of Deeds as a burden on the property. This is the situation in Sweden, a country with a long history of preservation of monuments. The Minister referred to that in her Second Stage speech. In Sweden national monuments are properly regarded as having national rights which exceed those of private ownership. Permission must be applied for and granted from an authorised body before they can be interfered with. Such rights have to be recognised by would-be developers, as well as by property owners. With the establishment of a register of historical monuments and archaeological sites throughout Ireland property owners and farmers will be more aware of the existence of monuments and archaeological areas on their properties.
Under the new legislation an owner will have to give two month's notice to the Commissioners of Public Works before he can interfere with a monument. This will give time for a decision to be reached as to whether the heritage interest in the site should be recorded by archaeological excavation. If not already recorded the site is given legal protection or allowed to be utilised as desired by the owner.
I am glad the Minister indicated that the work of identification has been proceeding at a more rapid pace recently. By the end of the decade it is hoped that a comprehensive archaeological site and monument record should be available for the whole country. The availability of such a record to planners, farm development officers and to the public generally should be most useful in bringing about a greater awareness of the monuments and archaeological sites in localities.
I should like to refer briefly to the damage caused by farm schemes around the country especially since we joined the EC. Farmers are encouraged to carry out major improvements on their lands, such as the removal of fences, hedges and large boulders. We have lost out considerably because of farm modernisation policies. I have first-hand information that numerous ring forts have been bulldozed away in the name of modernisation. It is difficult to blame the farmers, most of whom were probably not aware of the significance of the archaeological sites on their lands. They were often encouraged by advisers to bulldoze their lands.
It seems ironical that, on the one hand, we have State agencies trying to preserve sites and, on the other hand, we have State agencies promoting the destruction of sites. It has been mentioned previously by many commentators that we have lost out considerably in rural areas because of farming activities, especially over the last ten years. I hope this Bill will ensure that this destruction will not continue. It is important that a register should be drawn up as soon as possible. It has been looked for, for many years. A commitment has been given that it will be ready by the end of the decade.
I should also like to refer to a number of surveys being carried out at the moment in County Kerry. AnCo must be complimented on their efforts although their work may be overlapping with work the Office of Public Works should be carrying out. Nevertheless, they are carrying out very important surveys on archaeological sites and in regard to the identification of monuments. One such study has been completed recently in the Corca Dhuibhne peninsula. It has proven very interesting. At the moment there are three surveys taking place: one is in the Castleisland area; one in south Kerry; and one in north Kerry. No doubt much information will be got from these surveys. When the Office of Public Works are making a record of monuments in County Kerry, I am sure they will use this information. Nevertheless, they should avoid, of course, unnecessary expense.
There is a place for AnCO in the preservation of historical monuments. AnCO could make use of their apprentices in renovating old buildings. It should be pointed out that such renovation should be under the supervision of Office of Public Works archaeologists. Because of the deterioration of so many monuments and because of the lack of a work force to carry out necessary repairs, we must act sooner rather than later as regards preservation and renovation. AnCO and the local communities, in conjunction with the Office of Public Works, have a role to play.
The most urgent matter now is preservation rather than identification. We may reach the end of the decade without identifying all our historical monuments. They may have weathered away or indeed been destroyed. In County Kerry much damage has been caused by the weather, and freeze-thaw action especially, on the unprotected walls of castles and abbeys. There is an urgent need to waterproof old walls. Certainly the Office of Public Works will never be able to do all this work, which could be done by AnCO. It is common to see ivy growing on buildings. Ivy can be a great destroyer. It is often considered a preservative but, in actual fact, it can cause a lot of structural damage. Even cleaning ivy off the monuments would be important.
I should like to refer to the length of time it takes the Office of Public Works' employees to renovate buildings. I know work on buildings is very slow and must be carried out meticulously. Nevertheless, Ross Castle in County Kerry is being renovated for the past five years. Donegal Castle is undergoing similar renovations. When tourists come to Killarney they expect to visit Ross Castle. It is advertised in brochures. The tourists find that these sites are not accessible to them. Last summer the Skellig Rock was closed to tourists. It is easy to understand the frustration which some tourists experience. I know the sites are closed for the right reasons. Nevertheless, work should proceed more speedily on these monuments.
It is worth pointing out that our monuments are attracting more and more tourists every year. A figure of three-quarters of a million tourists visited our national monuments last year. Over 500,000 visited Glendalough. Three hundred thousand tourists visited the National Park in Killarney. There is a case to be made for the promotion of our national monuments and their preservation from a tourist aspect alone. The case I was making for AnCO would help to get over this problem of renovation and to speed up the work rate, which is unacceptably slow at present.
One of the most controversial aspects of this Bill has been the proposed control on metal detectors. The Minister has pointed out that individuals who enjoy this interesting hobby and who have the right intentions will not be threatened by this legislation. However, the fact that archaeological sites or historical remains attract people using metal detectors means that this legislation would be inhibitory in the sense that any person who is caught on a site with a metal detector can be prosecuted. There may be an outcry from some groups against this. However, there are other activities that people who use metal detectors can profitably engage in. There are vast areas of country that will never be considered archaeological sites on which they can certainly experiment. There is another aspect which should also be encouraged among people who use metal detectors. Except for the use of metal detectors some of our archaeological remains would never have been discovered. The case has been made that when an object has been removed it is very difficult to trace where that object has come from. There may be other remains that may never be discovered because an object was removed from a site. In the past some individuals have behaved very responsibly with metal detectors and should be complimented on some of the finds which otherwise would never have been made.
I also wish to refer briefly to the legislation governing our underwater heritage. Coming from a county such as Kerry, with numerous offshore wrecks, this has a major significance. It is only right that our underwater heritage should be protected. Nevertheless, diving groups should not be discouraged from diving to discover historical wrecks. It is only proper that legislation should exist in order to ensure that when wrecks are discovered they are not then destroyed.
There is a growing interest, especially off the Kerry coastline, in the numbers of wrecks that have been discovered. There is certainly a tourist aspect to this. Groups should be encouraged to come here to dive but it should be made clear to them that they cannot interfere with the wrecks or with objects they find until they are checked out by the commissioners.
I am also pleased that there is a new Historical Monuments Council. Somebody asked me recently why it was not called the National Historical Monuments Council. The original title was the National Monuments Advisory Council. I am even more interested in the fact that local authorities will now be given the right to go ahead and set up local historical monuments advisory committees. This is very important. I can see great scope for such committees. For example, we could overcome many of the problems that have been experienced in the past, such as the problems regarding the farming community, by including members of farming organisations on such a committee. People from farm advisory services should also be on the committee as should also members from local historical societies, and from the teaching profession. Teachers have a major role to play in the future preservation of our monuments and in developing an awareness within their classes of the importance of the preservation of our heritage.
The whole concept of local history within the schools should be developed. In the new history syllabus it should be recommended that a large section of the new history course should deal with local history. As a former history teacher myself, I always felt that the students enjoyed dealing with local subjects rather than with some remote wars that took place 300 years ago. The way history was taught in the past left a lot to be desired as regards the basic appreciation of our heritage and of our local environment. The local advisory committee could be very important in the development of the local awareness that I am speaking about here today. I hope the councils will go ahead and establish committees. Local councils will have a major role to play also in ensuring that this legislation is enacted. They, too, in their work should ensure that the excavations they carry out will be well checked out beforehand to ensure that they are not damaging any archaeological sites. In the past local authorities have been guilty of damage to archaeological sites and to national monuments just because it was convenient and expedient at the time. They will have to be more responsible as regards their attitudes to our heritage.
Finally, I welcome the Bill. From various articles I have read about it and from what I have heard from commentators, like Ó Riordáin, I understand that this type of Bill has been sought for years by people interested in this area. I am glad it has at last come before the House. I hope it will have the desired impact.
I want to compliment the Minister for introducing this Bill. As Senator Deenihan said, it is one that has been eagerly awaited by the professional people who have been working so tirelessly in this area for a long number of years. While reading through the Bill, I find that the only Minister mentioned in it is the Minister for Communications. I cannot see exactly where he fits in. I presume, even though it is not in the definition section which is unusual, that the Minister is the Minister for Finance.
It has been rather distressing over the last number of months to read on a number of occasions in the national press about artifacts or pieces of ancient sculpture disappearing. That is something which I hope will be taken extremely seriously. Every effort should be made to ensure that people are discouraged from doing that. The penalty section in this Bill is not severe enough. Thoughtless persons for the aggrandisement of their own back garden take a "shine" to a piece of ancient sculpture which would constitute part of a national monument. The level of the fines — a maximum of £1,000 or six months in prison — is absolutely inadequate to stamp out this kind of selfishness especially if it should spread. Therefore, I am not satisfied with the penalty section. The work of the Commissioners of Public Works is very wide-ranging and while many people might accuse them from time to time of being rather slow there is no doubt but that their work is of an extremely high standard. It is extremely thorough. We are entitled to give the Bord of Works and the people who are employed by them, greater appreciation for the standards they maintain.
We have examples of that in the midlands, for example in Holycross we have had a marvellous reconstruction programme. In Duiske, Graiguenamanagh the restoration of the church by the local parish has been a great success. For a long number of years, since the former Deputy Gibbons was Parliamentary Secretary in the Office of Public Works which was a long time ago, and again when Deputy Begley held that post, I have been campaigning to have Dunamaise Castle taken over and maintained by the Department and by the Office of Public Works. It is difficult to know exactly how much progress has been made on this matter. It is not only that it is a historic monument but it is one that appears on the oldest maps, dealing with Hibernia with a history going back 4,000 years. It is not a monument the restoration of which can be looked upon as being offensive in any way to any sector of the community because its history ended well before the Reformation. It is relatively small. The history of the O'Moores represents a very fine chapter in Irish history. At one stage I was told that it was the property of a Lord Congelton whose ancestors in the last century or the century before lived in that area. I know that apart from this Bill, the commissioners had power to acquire by compulsory acquisition properties of national interest and since this is set in one of the most beautiful and scenic parts of the midlands I am not altogether pleased at the slow rate of progress that the Office of Public Works have made on this application. I would ask the Minister who has certainly made a name for herself in her short period in office — she has not only worked assiduously but has decorated the Office of Public Works — to apply her great energies to bringing to a successful conclusion the acquisition of Dunamaise Castle for public ownership without any further delay.
Section 2 of the Bill dealing with the restriction on the use of the detection devices, is extremely important and I know that for many years the museums and the Office of Public Works organised digs on various sites throughout the summer months. I would like to see, perhaps, for next year the Office of Public Works organising a preliminary sweep of all the national monuments with their own metal detectors using possibly the university archaeological students during the summer holidays. At least this would be an effort to ensure that artifacts that may be very close to the surface would be recovered by the State. It would not be an impossible task systematically to cover all of the national monuments in the control of the Office of Public Works.
To take the example of Dunamaise Castle I think since that place was burnt down and the O'Moores were just dispersed there surely must be, especially in the pit of the place under the building itself, many artifacts which have lain undisturbed for the last four and a half centuries.
I want to welcome the provisions in section 4 for the establishment of the Historic Monuments Council. That is an excellent addition to the present services. I note with interest the representation the Minister has proposed for this council which I would look upon as having a most important role to play in conserving the monuments throughout this country.
It is most appropriate that all of the university colleges should be represented and also Bord Fáilte, the Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, the Royal Institute of Architects and the Maritime Institute of Ireland but I feel that perhaps there should be strong representation on that from the museums. I should like to see the General Council of County Councils represented because it is important that such a body should have an entre and a liaison with the local authorities across this country. From the point of view of respecting the rights of private ownership I should like to see the landowners with some input and some representation and perhaps the Minister might very well consider nominating a member from the IFA or one of the larger farming bodies to that council.
It is important that at a time when there is a diminishing respect for the rights of private property, especially in the student season when some people under the guise of sportsmen do not seem to mind where they let off a shot even if is in your back garden, that the people who own the land, especially monuments not taken into care, should have representation. I ask the Minister to consider that, bearing in mind that she has up her sleeve, four or five other posts for persons she considers ideal from the point of view of making contributions to the work of the council. Of late, through AnCO schemes especially, local communities with the co-operation of the Office of Public Works have made a valuable contribution. If I were to cite Aghaboe Abbey which is the ancient seat of St. Canice and St. Kieran in the diocese of Ossory which is in South Laois, I think that with the co-operation of AnCO and the Office of Public Works the hard-working local committee have achieved remarkable success in conserving the ancient and historic ruins there between Ballacalla and Borris-in-Ossory. I do not know what the overall cost of that work was, but whatever it was it was indeed very worthwhile. The fact that so many young people had the opportunity of having a course in stone masonry there must be of immense value to that particular locality in County Laois. From that point of view I would hope that the board would expand that service as far as possible throughout the country.
There are a number of national monuments of various sizes in the care of the Office of Public Works. I will name a few of them in my own county, St. Fiaces Church which is outside Carlow and that remarkable Romanesque doorway near Killeshin Church. The maintenance could be better in all of these. From a conservation point of view we may not like to be using too much Roundup or sprays of that kind. Even though I do not expect that someone should be paid a full salary to act as maintenance man or caretaker of these monuments I think it must be within the powers and the limits of the financial constraints of the Office of Public Works to spray the gravel areas at least once a year so that people can gain access to these very remarkable and beautiful monuments which are reminders of our past culture and history without having to walk through nettles and briars. Some of these are maintained exceptionally well and, I suppose that applies to Killeshin to a lesser extent but it should be possible to keep them all in good order especially when they are signposted, it is embarrassing if they are not maintained to some acceptable standard. I hope the Minister will look at these. If you fly a flag on a monument I think it should be readily accessible and we should not expect our tourists to carry a pair of wellingtons with them or a slashhook. I think that is important. There is an excellent regional office and staff in Portlaoise. I do not know if they have anything to do with those monuments or whether they confine themselves to schools and extensions and the development of public buildings. We should endeavour to keep the flag flying. In the area of national monuments everyone is impressed by the craftsmanship of those people from far-off generations who have gone before us.
This is an area where the availability of finance should not be an inhibiting factor. After all, I suppose it is the most popular part of the Department of Finance although I held the view for years that Finance should be broken up, that there should be a very definite budget section and spending section so that the same people would not be doing the three card trick with two sides.
Maybe it is becoming a national monument itself.
We would not like to see that happen. I ask the Minister, now that she is a powerful personage in that office and can wield more power than she herself may realise, to create that impetus in the board and to ensure that adequate finance is allocated to this section of the work. It is very important that with the damage occurring to the environment and the absolute lack of interest shown by a percentage of our population for anything of the past, for history or for tradition, that the Department be entitled to allocate more resources so that these monuments can be preserved.
I would like to see greater co-operation between the national monuments section in the Office of Public Works and the Department of Lands. If we consider some of the more remote valleys in the Slieve Bloom mountains which have beautiful and refreshing vistas they do not have very many national walks like the walking trails in Wicklow such as the Wicklow Way, or the Kerry Way for the Kerry mountains and lakes. There is one in embryo in the Slieve Blooms. I think the committee there which is based on the VEC would appreciate an input from people with experience in the Office of Public Works to try to open up that area for leisure purposes. With that, we must also have an educational input so that old artefacts and stones and landmarks that are there will not be disturbed when people are aware of their importance and their significance. It is important not to disturb the environment especially when it has come down almost 2000 years.
I do not know who should be responsible but since the Minister is responsible for most things in this area I think she should make an effort to go the whole way because in all these areas we have too many splinter groups. It is true that Bord Fáilte would have an input but they say that they have no money and will do nothing. They do not have the staff.
This year I was very glad to see the Office of Public Works taking over responsibility for the canals from CIE. I do not say the canal system is a national monument but the infrastructures reflect the craftmanship of stonemasons and other craftsmen and I think are important. The canals are a facility and amenity that would cost millions of pounds to reproduce at the present time. I want to compliment the Government and all concerned with the easy transfer of control to the Office of Public Works. As a politician with almost 30 years experience I can rest assured that the system is in good hands and will be maintained. It cannot be maintained unless the moneys are assigned to it and that is why I would hope that the present Minister, with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, will ensure that adequate resources will be made available and that proper funding will be provided so that she can relax in the knowledge that the works she has responsibility for will be undertaken with the maximum speed. I know it can display great efficiency but it is important that the finance should be allocated to it.
In conclusion I want to mention Daingean in County Offaly. It was the old reformatory run by a religious order which served many generations. When it closed down they had a capitation grant of 7/6d a week. I do not think it went very far towards reforming anyone. I mention that because miracles were expected from these places but there was little funding put into the system. We have a lot of artefacts and various things in store there. I should like the Minister to consider allocating some area of that for a small agricultural-type museum. I know that An Foras Talúntais land at Johnstown Castle has a very nice agricultural museum. I think it is the only one in the country. I have not seen one anywhere else. The only other place I have seen a rural museum is in Fermanagh. It is the Mellon Institute, off the main road, either between here and Enniskillen or here and Belfast. It is a very impressive place. It is well worth a visit. Since there is so much in Daingean perhaps the Minister might consider making even a small area available there for some of the stuff. There is huge accommodation there and it would make the place more interesting. We should also have a second rural museum. Daingean is fairly central, in the midlands near Tullamore. It would be an ideal location and provide a public usage for the facilities we have there.
I should like to compliment the Minister on bringing forward this Bill. I hope it will be financed to ensure that its objectives will be met and that we will be able to move on them speedily. I wish the Minister and the board every success with the provisions contained in the Bill.
A Leas Chathaoirligh, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo agus focal gairid a rá faoi. Is dóigh liom gur Bille an-tábhachtach é agus gur Bille é go mba cheart a leithéid a bheith tugtha isteach sa tír seo fadó, mar go mbaineann sé le stair, le litríocht, le dinnseanachas agus béaloideas na tíre seo ar fad agus dá bhrí sin measaim go bhfuil sé fíorthábhachtach go bhfuil an Bille seo á thabhairt isteach agus go gcuirfidh an Bille seo an tábhacht sin os comhair an phobail agus go mór mhór os comhair daoine óga. Mar adúirt mé tá forálacha an Bhille seo fite fuaite le stair ár dtíre, seanstair ár stíre, stair ár muintire, stair a bhfuil eolas uirthi á chailliúint insan aimsir dheireannach seo, tá faitíos orm. Níl paróiste in Éirinn nach bhfuil seanfhothracha, nó sean teampaill nó reiligí nó rudaí eile mar iad atá fíorstairiúil ar fad agus níl mórán eolais orthu faoi láthair ag daoine go ginearálta. Fiú amháin san bparóiste inár tógadh mé féin, sa mbaile — tharla go raibh mé thíos ansin cúpla seachtain ó shin — agus bhí seanmóir ag an sagart insan seipeal an Domhnach sin ag tagairt do na háiteacha beannaithe a bhí san bparóiste. Chuir sé ionadh orm an oiread áiteacha is a luaigh sé go raibh stair ag baint leo. Bhí sé ag caint faoi na teampaill atá i nDúiche Sheoigheach i gConamara agus chuir sé an-ionadh orm a mheíd áiteacha stairiúla a bhí san cheantar sin agus na fothracha a bhí ann. Luaigh sé iad agus luaigh sé na blianta a cuireadh ar fáil iad agus an stair an-tábhachtach ar fad a bhí ag baint leo. Tá inscribhinní, cuir i gcás ar chuid de na teampaill sin a chruthaíonn gur bunaíodh iad san seachtú aois.
Tá fothrach i dteampall nó i reilig an pharóiste a théann siar go dtí an seachtú aois agus níl aon amhras ná go bhfuil tábhacht ag baint le leithéidí sin de fhothrach agus go mba cheart go ndéanfaí caomhnú air agus go gcoinneófaí é sa riocht inar cheart dó a bheith. Faraor ní mar sin atá, mar tá an seanteampall sin imithe i léig agus ní bheadh a fhios agat le breathnú air anois ná ag féachaint air go bhfuil aon tábhacht ag baint leis. Ach cuireann sé i gcuimhne dom an dán breá sin atá againn mar oidhreacht i litríocht na Gaeilge a chum Seán O Coileáin, "Tigh Molaga". Is cuimhin le cuid mhaith daoine é, is dócha. Bhí sé ar chlár shiollabas na litríochta na scoileanna agus tugann an file cuntas ar an teampall. Tagann sé i dtreo an fhothraigh nó an teampall seo le tuitim na hoíche agus labhraíonn sé leis an teampall mar seo: "Eidhean ag eascar ós do stua,/neartóg rua id urlár úr,/tafann caol na sionnach searg/is crónán na n-eas id chlúid./Mar a nglaodh ar fhuiseog mhoch/do chléir ag canadh a dtráth/ní bhfuil teanga ag corraí anois/ach teangtha gliogair na gcág." Anois, sin sampla den rud atá i gceist agam. Sean teampall a bhí imithe i léig, a raibh, mar a dúirt an file, eighneán ag eascair as a stua agus é ag tuitim as a chéile. Tá go leor leor eile teampaill agus fothracha mar é atá ligthe i léig agus ba cheart caomhnú a dhéanamh orthu agus iad a thabhairt insan riocht, mar a dúirt mé, ar ceart dóibh a bheith.
Ba mhaith liom sin a chur i gcomhéacs an Bhille seo mar go bhfuil tábhacht anmhór ag baint leis an mBille seo leis na rudaí sin a chaomhnú — dinnseanachas, an béaloideas agus an stair atá le fáil tríd na fothracha ar fuaid na hÉireann. Tá tábhacht eile ag baint leis na fothracha sin go dtagann go leor leor daoine anseo ó thíortha iasachta gur mian leo na háiteacha seo a fheiceáil agus rud éigin a fhoghlaim futhu. Daoine iad a chuireann spéis, cuirim i gcás, i stair, agus níl aon amhras ná go bhfuil tábhacht mhór iontu do chúrsaí turasóireachta agus do thionnscal na turasóireachta mar nuair a thagann daoine go dtí an tír seo bíonn fonn orthu dul go dtí Cluain Mhic Nóis agus áiteacha eile mar é atá ar fud na tíre. Níl amhras dá laghad ach go bhfuil tábhacht an-mhór le forálacha an Bhille seo le haghaidh na daoine go mor mhór iad siúd a thagann chugainn thar lear a dhíriú ar na háiteacha seo ionas go bhféadfar iad a chur ar an eolas go bhfuil siad ann agus an tábhacht atá ag baint leo. Ba mhaith liom tagairt ar leith a dhéanamh do alt a 4 den Bhille seo agus deireann alt a 4 go gcuirfear comhairle ar fáil leis an mBille seo a chur i bhfeidhm agus le aird ar leith a thabhairt ar an mBille seo insan am atá le teacht, is é sin nuair a bheidh sé in a Acht. Ba cheart go mbunófaí comhairle dá shórt agus go bhféachfaí chuige go mbeidh Gaeilgeóirí ar an gcomhairle sin, go bhféachfaí chuige go príomhga agus go cinnte go mbeidh roinnt Ghaeilgeóirí air. Is dócha gur mar sin atá agus gur mar sin a bheidh, go bhfuil sé sin in aigne an Aire agus in aigne na Roinne a bhfuil an Bille seo faoin a gcúram go mbeidh Gaeilgeóirí ar an gcomhairle a mbeidh ar a gcumas dul thart ag na fothracha agus ag na háiteacha sin go bhfuil an stair sin le fáil iontu le tátal a bhaint as na hinscríbhinní atá ar na fothracha sin, mar tá inscríbhinní i nGaeilge ar gach ceann acu agus tá siad ag dul i bhfad siar. Go hiondúil is sa seanGhaeilge atá na hinscríbhinní sin agus muna bhfuil eolas an-mhaith ag na daoine a bheidh ag déanamh scrúdú ar na hinscríbhinní sin ní bheidh siad in ann tátal a bhaint astu nó an t-eolas a bhaint astu atá le fáil iontu. Measaim mar sin go mba chóir go mbeadh agus go bhféachfaí chuige go mbeidh Gaeilgeóirí agus líon maith Gaeilgeóirí ar an gcomhairle sin. Tá mé cinnte gurab é sin atá ar intinn an Aire agus go ndéanfar é nuair a bheas an chomhairle sin á ceapadh.
Ba mhaith liom freisin focal gairid a rá faoi alt a 9. In alt a 9 déantar tagairt go mbeidh cead ag an gcomhairle nó pé dream a bheas ag féachaint i ndiaidh an Bhille seo agus á chur i bhfeidhm seilbh a ghlacadh ar na fothracha seo atá le fáil agus na hiarsmaí seo atá le fáil ar fud na tíre má mheastar dóibh go bhfuil tábhacht ar leith ag baint leo. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil sé sin an-riachtannach go mbeadh an cead sin acu in áit ar bith go gceaptar dóibh gur ceart é a dhéanamh.
Tá mé an-tsásta go bhfuil an Bille seo á thabhairt isteach agus go mbeidh sé ina reacht sul i bhfad agus go gcuirfidh sé na háiteacha seo go bhfuil tagairt déanta agam dóibh ar lámh shábhála agus go ndéanfaidh sé cóiriú orthu mar is cóir dóibh agus go bhfágfaidh sé iad sa gcaoi nach mbeidh eidhean ag eascair ós a stuanna san am atá le fáil. Tá súil agam go mbeidh caoí agus slacht orthu agus go gcaomhnófar iad chun go mbeidh eolas orthu agus eolas le fáil orthu ag, go mór mhór, na glúinte atá le teacht in ár ndiaidh. Tá siad lán de eolas, lán de litríocht, lán de dhinnseanchas agus de stair ár dtíre agus measaim gur ceart an t-omós agus an tabhacht is dual a thabhairt dóibh agus fáiltím go croíúil roimh an Bille seo.
Is maith liom bheith ag éisteacht leis an nGaeilge binn líofa atá ag an Seanadóir de Brún. I will confine my remarks on this Bill to the second official language in which I hope I have some degree of fluency. I am very pleased to support this Bill, the National Monuments Bill, 1986, and glad, too, that the moving spirit and guiding light behind it all, the Minister of State, Deputy Avril Doyle, is in the House this morning to attend the debate.
The Bill is designed to make further provision for the protection and preservation of national monuments and archaeological objects including provision for the regulation of the use and possession of detection devices and to make provision for the preservation and protection of historic wrecks, to amend and extend the National Monuments Acts of 1930 and 1954, and to provide for connected matters. It is to be welcomed on many accounts. It is true to say that our archaeological and our architectural heritage is vitally important to us as a people and we owe it, not alone to ourselves, but to the generations who will come after us to ensure that it receives the maximum possible protection.
The principal Act governing this area was passed 50 years ago and there was amending legislation 30 years ago. It is true to say that since then there have been major technological, scientific and mechanical discoveries and advances which have imperilled the priceless artefacts, treasures and antiquities which we are charged with preserving for the future. These advances to which I have referred are given recognition in the Bill and the very good and sound legislation which has served us well in the past is receiving the necessary updating which is what this Bill actually does.
History has taken its toll of our national monuments. When travelling through cities and towns and, indeed, the countryside of Ireland there are visible reminders of the depredations of conflict, war and violence which were so much part of our history. Ivy clad and nettle choked roofless ruins abound and they are a stark reminder to us of the harsher times that preceded us. This is in marked contrast to what obtains in other countries, notably our European neighbours. While visiting these countries it is a joy to worship, for example, in medieval cathedrals or to attend concerts in Roman amphi-theatres.
In fact, last month I was extremely fortunate to have been at a concert in a Roman amphitheatre in Aspendos in Southern Turkey. I went there to have the experience of seeing how the accoustics were in 1986. I did not have quite the opportunity I anticipated because those arranging the concert, in their enthusiasm, felt that amplification was necessary. So there was the cacophony of the modern day amplification and the accoustics of the Roman era, It really did make for an overload of sound and a very high level of decibels. That is an example of how things can go a little bit wrong in even the best of settings. Again, I harp back to the fact that we do not have quite that facility here in the way they do elsewhere, though recent restorations of places like, for example, the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham are an example to us of what we can do with our antiquities.
Many people will look at this House of the Oireachtas today and ask since there are so many problems in the country why on earth are our legislators spending time debating matters which do not seem to have special relevance to their every day lives. It is important to clarify why it is important to us to preserve and protect our national monuments. We have got to remember that our monuments, antiquities and artefacts help to define us as a people. They are about our national identity. They have been left to us by successive communities who have toiled on this land and they are a tangible reminder of the history of more than 5,000 years of life on this island.
This heritage is constantly under threat of destruction with the growth of the advances which I have already spoken about. Mechanised farming, though it has much that is good in it, and metal detectors, which are the devices referred to in the Bill, have increased the risks to our treasures enormously. Obviously these developments in themselves are good but it is very necessary to have a legislative framework and a structure within which all these objects can operate in order to protect our heritage for posterity.
There have been attempts in the past to introduce amending legislation by the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State, Deputy John Donnellan. Both attempts were frustrated on the basis that more comprehensive legislation was pending and there were constitutional battles concerning the ownership of private property, some of which have been actually resolved but there are others which remain unresolved. The only criticism I have of this Bill is that I am disappointed that it was not possible to make it the comprehensive legislation so many people were hoping for and anticipating and that it had to confine itself necessarily to important measures but perhaps not the fullest scope of what is desirable.
I am aware that all of those who work professionally in the area of museums, antiquities history and all the people in the various bodies throughout the country who cherish our heritage are keenly interested in this Bill and are in support of the measures which the Minister is introducing and are very pleased at her drive, enthusiasm and vigour in this area. She has been in office but for a short time and without being sycophantic in any way I would like to put it on the record that she has involved herself in her many briefs and has delivered to the best of her ability, given the resources available, in so many areas. By her very enthusiasm, particularly in this area, she has alerted many people to the value of the work in hand.
The task of protecting our heritage is an enormous responsibility. Excuses that we lack resources will be regarded with a very jaundiced eye by those who come after us. I know we are in a tight budgetary situation and that we have economic chaos. Nevertheless I must compliment the Minister for going so far within those limitations.
The section that has been a little bit vexatious and that has provoked criticism is section 2 covering the use of metal detectors. It is my view that the use of these devices must be rigorously controlled. I mean their use in areas where there are priceless treasures and artefacts, the idea of people having rein to use these anywhere they wish is unacceptable.
I would also make the point — I am disappointed that it was not included in the Bill — that I have noted blatant and flagrant advertising of these devices for treasure hunting. It might be found possible to curb that type of sales approach in the context of the Bill because it appeals to something romantic in the young, it harks back to a treasure island, treasure trove and the idea of uncovering or discovering something of immense value and becoming rich, famous and notorious overnight. I feel that kind of appeal, when we have this sort of legislation, should be curbed.
The provisions in the Bill governing the use of metal detectors will be judged as being fair by most people. Enormous damage has been done to archaeological sites by these treasure hunters. I do not think it was ever really done deliberately. They did not understand that by excavating in an amateurish fashion they were in fact disturbing layers of subsoil, interfering with a delicate sensitive remnant of the past which could tell us more about ourselves and destroying that sort of self-knowledge and that awareness which is important to us. The net effect of that kind of depredation is to wipe out some of our history and that cannot be allowed.
The use of metal detectors is not controlled at present and I think it is necessary under existing legislation to actually catch a person in flagrante delicto. That is what you have to do in order to be able to bring a successful prosecution. This Bill makes it an offence to bring a metal detector onto the site of a monument or into an archaeological area without the consent of the Commissioners of Public Works. There are also restrictions on the use of metal detectors elsewhere. This Bill will provide the necessary protections for our monuments against the activities of those who would plunder them.
Some people may think that this measure is unduly restrictive. I would like to put it on record also that many people who use these devices are well meaning and are innocent of intent. There are others who are otherwise motivated and there are the careless and unthinking. I feel on balance this Bill has got this aspect of the matter right.
Section 3 deals, too, with the protection of wrecks on the bed of the territorial seas or inland waterways and it is to be welcomed. I believe I am right in saying that it is the first such piece of legislation specifically governing wrecks and underwater artefacts. This is an area which is receiving a lot of attention internationally. There has been an official from the Office of Public Works on a committee of experts in the Council of Europe who drafted a convention on underwater archaeology. That kind of input from our officials and people with expert knowledge is to be welcomed. I am sure it was not unconnected with the fact that this provision is part and parcel of the Bill.
Any wreck which is more than 100 years old will as a consequence of this legislation be protected and the commissioners will be empowered to make historic orders in respect of areas where they are satisfied that important wrecks or archaeological objects lie. The net effect of all of this is to make it an offence to dive in prescribed areas for the purpose of, for example, exploration. The legislation provides a framework within which underwater archaeology can develop in a controlled manner and at a pace commensurate with the growth of expertise in what is a relatively new branch of archaeology. It is not, of course, only to apply to wrecks. It will also cover underway crannógs and places of habitation which since their establishment have become covered by water. That is to be welcomed.
Section 4 allows for the reconstitution of the former National Monuments Advisory Council under the new title of the Historic Monuments Council. A rose by any other name sprang to mind. This will replace the former National Monuments Advisory Council and it will advise and assist the Commissioners in relation to any matter affecting historic monuments, archaeological areas and wrecks. It will have a wider representation than the former National Monuments Advisory Council and in the context of what I have said about the wrecks it will include representation from the Maritime Institute of Ireland.
I am very pleased to see that North-South relations and our common cultural heritage have been given recognition in the provision of the Bill because there will be an invitation extended to Queens University, Belfast to nominate a representative. It is wise to ensure that the Council will never go out of existence due to the simultaneous lapsing of the term of office of each member. That provides for continuity and clarity and is an excellent provision. The bodies who will be represented on the council will have something to contribute and will have an informed and significant role to play. Looking at the groups listed in the Bill I would argue that there is an overly academic bias attached to the representation, a certain weight in favour of those people with the academic professional approach or expertise to these matters.
I wonder about Seán and Mary Citizen whom I feel have been excluded. I am referring to people with a genuine love, regard, interest and reverence for our heritage, for example, people in Waterford who are members of, the old Waterford Society or the Literary and Historical Society in Waterford whose passion in their spare time is field trips and lectures, books and a further knowledge of the past.
I am disappointed to see that An Taisce are not specifically mentioned and the museums also. Senator McDonald's point about having representatives of the farming interests included was a good one in view of the mindless destruction in many instances caused by developers, without any feeling of sensitivity for this area who have adopted a purely economic outlook in relation to the land.
The Minister has appointed a farmer as one of the members.
I thank the Minister, I was not aware of that. I still query the absence of Seán and Mary Citizen. I know that on the lower tier of the historic advisory committee Seán and Mary Citizen have their representation but I wish it was more direct. In setting up any body, council or committee hard choices have to be made. It is our function to make special pleadings and to point out areas where we feel legislation could be strengthened and wider perspectives could be sought. I will not be found wanting in my duty in that regard.
The farmer is also a member of the local historical society.
I would call that a good day's work, killing two birds and so on. The local authorities are on the second tier, through the committee rather than the council. I feel it represents some sort of downgrading for the local authorities. I take Waterford as an example. I sit on Waterford Corporation and notwithstanding their meagre budget they are able, even within the context of such restraints, to provide funding to preserve and care, for example, for Reginald's Tower, a national monument which is in many instances, apart from Waterford Glass, the emblem of Waterford. The recognition that local authorities deserve in the face of their work over the years could have been given by inclusion on the council rather than the committee.
There is provision in the Bill for the setting up of a register of historic monuments which is a development of the listing procedure introduced in the 1954 Amendment Act. Landowners under present legislation must give the commissioners two months notice of their intention to interfere in any way with listed monuments. This provision will remain but under the new legislation a monument or archaeological area entered in the register may be recorded by the Land Registry or the Registry of Deeds as a burden on the property.
Farming families and people who have lived on the land for years are well disposed towards the preservation of monuments. We have seen fields where the machinery and agricultural activity has tiptoed around the rath, the mound or the area which enshrines and is a tomb and depository of the past. Within that is an unspoken reverence, which some may regard as a superstition, but is an instinct that this should not be touched. It has not been the pattern in the past. The farmer and the farming families who have had the land handed down over the generations wish to maintain that regard.
Ownership patterns of land are changing. People with less sensitivity and people purely interested in efficiency factors and economic growth, all of which are laudable in themselves, have been responsible for tremendous destruction in a free cavalier fashion. It has happened in the past that people who have sought to buy land have not been aware at the time of purchase that there has been a monument of some sort on the land and have found themselves at the end of the day stuck with something they do not know how to cope with. All of that has been dealt with in this Bill. It will be known to anyone contemplating a purchase that there is a registered monument on the land and they can take account of that when they are deciding on their purchase. This will have the net effect of obviating resentment. It will create a climate of goodwill towards what we are attempting to do by way of conservation.
Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 deal with the powers of the commissioners and involve amendments to sections of the principal Act. I have spoken about section 14, the Historic Monuments Advisory Committee and the local authority input. The remaining sections deal with fees and fines, which come into sections 16 and 19. They are fines for offences specified in the 1930 Act which are increased by up to twenty fold. I do not think anyone should apologise for that kind of increase. We are talking about fines of £50 to £1,000. That is an area that was badly in need of updating. The existing fines are not and were not a deterrent to the mindless vandalism and the senseless destruction we all know about.
The Minister referred to the level of fines and penalties as the measure of our seriousness or earnest of our intent. The six months in prison for grave offences is a further demonstration of our determination to guard what is ours. These sections show a change of heart in official attitudes and a willingness to introduce legislation with real teeth which will give security to these national monuments.
We have got to remember that in the first instance what we are doing is for our own sake as a people. We have also got to remember that there is tremendous tourist potential and, therefore, economic advantage to us as a nation in preserving our heritage. This is an excellent Bill and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on it. I reiterate my congratulatory remarks to the Minister. I look forward to Committee Stage when we can tease out problems or add perspectives which may strengthen the Bill if they are accepted by the Minister.
I understand that the Minister has to be elsewhere at 12 o'clock, is this so?
No, I can continue.
Acting Chairman
Can the Minister continue?
Yes. I am under pressure but I will continue if that suits the House. I listened to the Second Stage debate on the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986, with great interest. I am heartened by the fact that the provisions of the Bill are so sincerely welcomed despite the feeling on the part of several Members that they do not go far enough. I also listened with satisfaction to the tributes paid to the Office of Public Works for their care not only of national monuments but of this fine heritage property in which we meet. It is not so often that bouquets are bestowed in that quarter, and they are greatly appreciated. Could I also add here a personal thank you for the kind remarks directed to me and say that I am humbled at the enormity of my task.
Senator Mullooly who opened the debate represents a county, County Roscommon, that has been to the forefront in taking measures to protect its archaeological and architectural heritage. While welcoming the Bill, he asked if it goes far enough when valuable artefacts are being removed from their traditional sites.
Some of the points he raised will no doubt come up again on Committee Stage. I share Senator Mullooly's concern for the safety of ancient grave-slabs and other works of art which have for centuries lain safe in old graveyards and churches around the country and we are looking urgently at the question of how these should be safeguarded. I am of the view that, as far as possible, these precious artefacts should be retained in the localities in which they have originated but this presents problems in some of the more isolated sites. In the case of Clonmacnoise the grave slabs have been taken down from the walls on which they had been mounted and as many as possible of them will be displayed in the safety of the proposed new visitor centre. As far as the law is concerned, all we can do is to legislate for heavy penalties which will deter would-be thieves and we are doing this in the present Bill.
The matter of treasure trove will, I hope, be clarified by the Supreme Court in the near future arising from the Derrynaflan case. It would be premature to make any statement about amending legislation until we have this clarification.
With regard to section 3 which deals with historic wreck sites Senator Mullooly suggested that the 100 years mentioned in the section should be reduced to 50 years. While this is a point which we could deal with on Committee Stage, I refer to it here in case there is a misunderstanding of our intentions. The section can, in fact, apply to any wreck which is considered to be of historical, archaeological or artistic importance, whatever its age, but there is a blanket coverage of wrecks of more than 100 years old. The figure of 100 years is, I think, reasonable in this regard and is in accordance with the consensus view in the Council of Europe.
Senator Mullooly expressed the view that the decisions of the Historic Monuments Council, particularly unanimous ones, should be binding on the Commissioners of Public Works. However, it is the Government and the Commissioners who must in the end accept responsibility and we could not have a situation where a body without the responsibility should have authority to make binding decisions.
Senator Dooge brought before our minds the pioneers of archaeological research and recording in Ireland. While the Office of Public Works still supply the shovels today as they did to Colonel Harry Jones at Dowth in 1845, that office today have a team of archaeologists engaged on the archaeological survey. Another team engaged on archaelogical excavations at national monument sites and on rescue digs such as that currently in progress at Dublin Castle, and a team of architects engaged on conservation and maintenance works at national monuments.
With regard to the archaeological survey referred to by Senator Mullooly and Senator Dooge, I would like to say that since 1982 much greater resources have been devoted to this task. In our efforts to expedite the work we have not become more superficial. What we have done is to streamline the procedure by breaking it into three distinct phases.
The first stage is what is called a paper survey. This covers not only an examination of Ordnance Survey maps, but research into all written material on the archaeology of the different counties, examination of estate maps and of independent surveys such as that done for County Roscommon to which Senator Mullooly referred.
It also involves intensive examination of aerial photography with the use of the most modern technology. As a result of this research sites and monuments records, which are far more comprehensive than the Ordnance Survey maps, are being produced. These are of great assistance to planners, and to other organisations such as the Farm Development Service to identify monuments which may be affected by developments of many kinds.
As well as producing this end product, the paper survey is an essential part of the whole archaeological survey process. The next stage is to do field work so that these monuments can be checked and classified by trained archaeologists and any other sites, which may not have come to light at the paper survey stage, located. This fieldwork leads to the publication of inventories, that is, comprehensive lists of monuments classified and briefly described. The third and final stage is the full report which is an academic analysis and discussion on the various monuments.
I would like, therefore, to assure Senators that there is a plan and that it is being implemented in stages, those stages which are essential for the protection of the monuments coming first and the academic stage being left to the end, by necessity.
Senator Dooge spoke of the reduction in grants for archaeological research occasioned by the Dublin Castle rescue dig. He concedes that rescue archaeology must have precedence over academic archaeology and therefore he cannot be disputing the choice made in this case. However, once that operation is out of the way, it would be the intention to bring the grants back up to their former level.
Senator Lanigan referred to the lack of information about what is going on in relation to national monuments and Senator Higgins raised a similar question of education in relation to our heritage. I am sure if resources were available there is much valuable work which the OPW could do in this regard but at the same time I would like to place on record my congratulations on the very interesting material which they have produced in recent years.
There are now booklets in relation to nearly all the major monuments, while the booklet `Irish Field Monuments' produced last year has been a major contribution to education on this subject. Fifty thousand copies have been printed and most of these have been distributed. Copies have been sent to each school in the country and many schools have ordered extra copies so that they can be used in the school curriculum. Senator Higgins' proposal to make slides of monuments available to schools would be an interesting extension of this first step.
Senator Lanigan raised the question of archaeology in schools and said it is time that in our schools we were given the opportunity to have the subject of national heritage or archaeology brought into the curriculum in a more structured way. He went on to say it is a pity that close to our national sites of importance there is not, in any of them, a centre where children could be brought and kept for a day or two to get a good guiding in the particular sites. As it happens we hope to take a short step in this direction this year. The supervisor at the Rock of Cashel is intending to provide a programme for school children there. In addition we have at Cahir Castle an excellent audio-visual presentation of the major monuments in the surrounding area and I would encourage school teachers in the area, if they have not already done so, to arrange to visit Cahir Castle with their pupils. It is the intention to provide audio-visual shows to the same high standard at other centres. The new visitor centre under construction at Glendalough will have an audio-visual theatre and another is being provided at Parke's Castle, County Sligo.
Senator Dooge suggested an RIA sponsored study or meeting of minds between archaeologists and scientists to consider the best methods to employ in meeting the challenges of the present and the future. This is an interesting idea and I would fully support the view that we must tap the wealth of knowledge and experience of all academic disciplines.
Senator Dooge expressed concern in respect of people engaged in genuine geophysical exploration and has asked whether the general licence issued by the Department of Energy will protect persons using electronic methods for the determination of metal deposits and oils. On a strict interpretation of the Bill the Department of Energy licence would not be sufficient and I propose to introduce an amendment to facilitate people engaged in genuine licensed geophysical exploration on Committee Stage.
Under the heading of documentation, I am pleased to be able to say that in our Sites and Monuments Records Office we are using the most advanced computerised facilities either here or in Britain. Apart from speeding up the production of sites and monuments records these facilities are storing information which can be easily retrieved and which will, in time, form part of a comprehensive computerised data base for all our national monuments.
The comments of Senators Dooge and Lanigan in relation to the National Museum are outside the scope of this Bill. It is hoped, however, that they will be noted in the proper quarter.
I agree with Senator Dooge that documentation is important and that the best documentation is to have the sites and monuments open to the public as visible, tangible evidence of the events which centred around them and I like Senator Lanigan's idea of developing facilities at monuments which would provide scope for educational "summer camps". It will be noted that this Bill will facilitate this, in particular section 7 which provides for development of visitor facilities adjacent to monuments.
Senator Lanigan referred to the 150,000 monuments in the country. The best estimate at the moment is that there are approximately 60,000 to 80,000 monuments in the State and it is the intention that when the surveys which are now in progress are completed, all the monuments will receive statutory protection. Inevitably only a small number of the most important monuments will be in State care. I hope that, as resources become available, the number in State care and open to visitors will be increased.
Senator Dooge stressed that, in his view, rescue archaeology should take precedence over academic archaeology and that rescue units should be set up to cope with the increasing incidence of cases requiring rescue digs. In reply to this, I point out that the policy pursued has been to require developers to bear the cost and engage archaeologists for these digs. The cost of a rescue dig is not usually very great when set against the overall cost of development.
Senator Higgins described the reaction of a group of developers on being advised that archaeological remains had come to light on their site. Their immediate thought was to find a quick way of disposing of the problem. I am glad to say that, while this reaction is to be expected, more and more developers are finding that the Commissioners of Public Works are in a position to give them guidance and help which they need to deal in a positive way with such a problem, that is, by engaging an archaeologist to investigate the site. In a certain number of cases they may reveal a very important site which warrants full protection.
With regard to the proposed Register of Historic Monuments and the section 18 provision which allows for registered monuments to be entered as burdens on land Senator Connor pointed out that section 18 applies only to unregistered land. This is so but this should cover 90 per cent of cases. This is as much as we found it practicable to do and it will be a great advance as heretofore a buyer of land had no way of knowing whether or not there was a monument on the site. I understand that the Incorporated Law Society have recently included national monuments restrictions in their requisitions on title, repairing an omission which has caused problems in the past.
Senator Fitzsimons wondered if the Bill would help to prevent the depredation of wrecks. The Bill by imposing more realistic penalties will help to deter predators but we will still be dependent on local vigilance and, of course, on the Garda to protect this aspect of our heritage.
There were a number of points raised about the Historic Monuments Council. Senator Fitzsimons queried why the title was changed from National Monuments to Historic Monuments. Senator Bulbulia asked was it a rose by any other name. The reason for the change was that the term "national monuments" has a narrow definition whereas it is intended that the new council will concern itself with the wider field, including wrecks which are encompassed by the word "historic". There is quite a definite reason for the change in the name of the council.
Senator Mullooly, Senator Dooge and Senator Connor made a number of suggestions regarding the composition of the council and, indeed, many other Senators too. To meet these suggestions the size of the council would need to be increased considerably. If we took all the extra bodies and persons suggested by Senators we would double the size of the council from 18 to 36 instantly without any leeway for the Minister for Finance of the day to appoint anybody to it. While I am sympathetic to some of the proposals, we must face the fact that the line has to be drawn somewhere. If the number becomes too large it becomes unwieldy and my view is that about 18 is the optimum number.
Experience has shown, too, that when organisations nominate representatives who have no personal interest in national monuments they do not take an active part in the proceedings. For this reason the Minister for Finance, in selecting five representatives for the reconstituted National Monuments Advisory Council, chose people with a special interest in monuments but who were also engaged in related activities such as agriculture. There are also representatives of local historic societies in those five extra people.
I do not think it would be a good idea, as Senator Fitzsimons proposed, to compel the council to meet at prescribed times. There would be very little point in the council meeting just to fulfil the requirements of the Act. In any event, I do not foresee any danger that the council will not wish to meet at frequent intervals.
Senator Fitzsimons asked why there have been so few prosecutions under the National Monuments Acts. If the penalties were sufficiently severe, a small number of prosecutions would be enough to teach salutary lessons. One of the problems has been that the level of fines at present is ludicrous, to use the term applied by several Senators. There is also the problem of collecting evidence which would warrant bringing a prosecution. Under this Bill, it will now be much easier to secure a prosecution for unauthorised use of metal detectors.
I agree with Senator Fitzsimons's view of the importance of preserving old graveyards but as he rightly says this is a matter for the local authorities. It would be outside the scope of this Bill to provide funds for local authorities for this purpose. I was glad to note from Senator Willie Ryan that the Tipperary (South Riding) County Council are giving proper attention to the old graveyards in their area.
Senator Fitzsimons was unhappy with the provision that a monument may be moved out of the area or out of the county. He would prefer that, if a monument has to be moved, it should go to a local museum. I heartily agree with this view but in many cases there may not be a local museum or at any rate a museum where the monument would be safe so we must provide for such contingencies. Senator Fitzsimons's proposal to fund the establishment of local museums is, I am afraid, also outside the scope of this Bill. Senator Fitzsimons refers to old workhouses, disused Protestant churches and thatched cottages. The fact that these are post-1700 does not preclude them from the provisions of this Bill. I repeat this because there has been some concern by reporters lest that might not be so. It does not preclude them from the provisions of this Bill — the fact that these and many other interesting monuments and buildings are post-1700.
There is the question of resources. This is not something particular to this country. Throughout Europe, even in the most prosperous countries there is an acceptance that the extension of the view of what constitutes the architectural heritage has far outstripped the finances available for its preservation and this question of financing conservation is receiving much attention. In a fortnight's time I will be opening a conference on this subject which is being organised by An Foras Forbartha and I will be interested to see what emerges from this conference dealing with the whole vexed question of financing our heritage.
Senator Connor referred to the economical aspect of our national monuments and advocated greater spending on monuments in order to get a return in the form of tourism earnings. Again, I totally agree with this. Expenditure on the conservation of our heritage should be looked upon as an investment. Unfortunately, we are living at a time of serious financial constraint and the time is not ripe for a major increase in investment in this area at any rate from the State.
Senator Connor suggests that we appoint local people to watch archaeological sites against the depredations of treasure hunters. The OPW already employ 142 caretakers around the country and I will ask the commissioners to consider further extending this service. In fact, section 8 of this Bill provides for authorising persons other than officials to carry out inspections on behalf of the commissioners. This provision can be availed of to authorise interested members of local historical societies to enter on lands for the purpose of inspecting monuments.
Senator Connor made very interesting proposals for promoting public awareness and interpretation of monuments other than those in the care of the commissioners and the provision of public museums. I could not agree more with him, but again I must say it is not a lack of legislation but a shortage of resources that is holding us back.
Senator Ryan has some sympathy for metal detector users for the reason that as he said, the Derrynaflan treasure would not have been discovered but for the use of a metal detector. This is not necessarily the position. A number of years ago an archaeological excavation was mooted for Derrynaflan and, while that did not take place, the likelihood is that an excavation would have, in due course, unearthed the treasure. In that event the archaeologists would have been able to piece together more of the story, which is now regrettably lost forever, as to how the treasure happened to be there.
Senator Connor asked for a word of explanation as to how the proposed Register of Historic Monuments will fit in with existing provisions for registration of land. The Register of Historic Monuments will stand on its own as a legal record of protection afforded to archaeological areas and monuments under the National Monuments Acts. It will be available for the purpose of searches on title to land. However, provision is made in this Bill to have such protection where appropriate recorded in the Land Registry as a burden on land. This initiates a process which will lead in time to registration of all monuments and protected sites as burdens on land, at which state the much desired blanket protection will have been achieved.
Senator Deenihan referred to the role of AnCO and local communities in surveys in conservation works. The Office of Public Works are co-operating with AnCO on a number of projects. There has been a scheme in progress for a few years whereby the Office of Public Works provide training for apprentice stone-masons. I am delighted to say that includes many women. The plasterwork at Carrick-on-Suir Castle is being done by AnCO apprentices under the guidance of an Office of Public Works craftsman.
There is a very interesting joint project in the restoration of Swiss Cottage at Cahir, County Tipperary. This is one of the best examples of a cottage orner in these islands. In this case the joint project is being undertaken by the local community, AnCO, the county council, the Georgian Society and by a very generous American benefactor, all of whom are co-operating with the Office of Public Works in the restoration of this unique building. This is a practice I would love to see extended.
There are so many of our monuments and so much of our heritage that the State will not be able to reach at least for some time. It is an area we must explore and I intend to explore fully how the State, if you like under the direction of the Office of Public Works, can be involved in a joint venture with the private sector and other State bodies in restoring and preserving our heritage. It is up to all of us. The State could not possibly take on the job alone.
Senator Deenihan referred to the local advisory committees and said that the committees should have representatives of the farming community, local historical committees and teachers. I emphasise there is no restriction at all on county councils on including such people on the advisory committee. Many councils already do so. I urge Senators who are also involved on county councils to ensure that first, these committees are up and running and, secondly, that they meet regularly. We need to instill far more enthusiasm at that level. That will help very much in what we are trying to achieve.
Senator McDonald wondered at the delay in taking over the Rock of Dunamase as a national monument. The Senator will be happy to know that the problem of title in this case has been sorted out recently and the monument has recently passed into the care of the Commissioners of Public Works.
Senator Dooge structured his major contribution to this debate on the seven headings used by Professor Mitchell in his presidential address to the Royal Irish Academy in 1978. A number of other speakers referred to this address also.
This address was entitled "Planning for Irish Archaeology in the Eighties" and was concerned to a large extent with the activities of the National Museum for which I am not responsible. Nevertheless I can safely say that the museum has improved considerably in recent years under the guidance of my colleague Deputy Nealon, Minister of State for Arts and Culture, and that at least some of the criticisms made by Professor Mitchell would not apply today.
I should also point out that the Professor's address did not purport to be a comprehensive plan for national monuments. As he pointed out, the National Monuments Branch of the Office of Public Works has two arms, one architectural, the other archaeological. The address dealt with the archaeological arm but no report on national monuments is complete without reference to the excellent work done by the architectural staff.
Many of the Senators who contributed to the debate have praised the excellent conservation work done at our major monuments. Many were mentioned from Kilmainham Castle down to small projects. This work, designed by sensitive architects and executed by skilled craftsmen, is a delight to all who visit our monuments and it is complemented by the interpretive service provided by the guides at these monuments. Perhaps enough credit has not been given to our guide services. The development of this service has been one of the great success stories of recent years. Each year we are extending this service to additional sites and the number of visitors is increasing all the time. In fact, there is a direct relationship between establishing a guide service and audio-visual facilities at our monuments and an enormous increase immediately in the number of visitors to that site. As a matter of interest, Mellifont Abbey was added this year to the list where a guide service is provided. This is one of the sites where Professor Mitchell felt there was lack of control. That control is now in place.
Coming back to archaeology, the thing that strikes me on reading Professor Mitchell's address is the tremendous progress that has been made in the intervening years. For instance under the heading "record" the two criticisms made by Professor Mitchell were, first, the lack of publication, and secondly, the lack of resources devoted to the national survey. We now have inventories published for Counties Louth and Donegal and for the Dingle Peninsula. County Monaghan will be published later this month, County Meath is with the printers and in the next two years we will have County West-meath, County Kildare and parts, if not all of County Cork and County Galway published. I have every confidence that this monument will be maintained. I have already outlined the rapid progress being made with the publication of sites and monuments records.
Over the past four years there has been a significant increase in the finance allocated for national monuments and much of this has been devoted to the survey work. Professor Mitchell said that in 1978 there were only six people engaged on it and he looked forward to increasing this to 30. I am glad to say that since 1982 there have been on average more than 30 people engaged on this work. The OPW's own staff has been increased and contracts have been placed with archaeologists, some of these under the aegis of UCC and UCG.
Under the heading "Protect" the main proposal was that a sum of £5 million should be set aside each year for the purpose of purchasing monuments. I need hardly say that, regrettably, no Government have found it possible to make such funds available.
The Professor saw the main objective to be that "we must reach the position of Sweden where national monuments are regarded, very properly, as having national rights which exceed those of private ownership and have absolute protection from interference, except where permission to interfere has been granted by an authorised body". This is my objective. The Supreme Court has confirmed that national monuments may have rights which exceed those of private ownership and it is the intention that once every monument in the country is entered in the register they will have the protection sought by Professor Mitchell.
With regard to the protection of underwater wrecks, it is clear that a different attitude now prevails than did in the case of the Trinidad Valencera. Preservation orders have been placed on three wrecks sites and every effort made to protect these sites with the statutory authority available under the current legislation. The commissioners have taken a leading part in the Council of Europe's deliberations on this topic and the provisions of the Bill now before us are based on the results of these deliberations.
Reference to the active interest taken by some local authorities in their heritage was made by many Senators. Indeed we wish that every local authority would actively involve themselves in this field. The local authorities as well as the Commissioners of Public Works have powers and duties under the National Monuments Acts. I am glad to say that the local authority with which I am most intimately acquainted, Wexford County Council, have taken the bold step of developing a Heritage Park at Ferrycarrig three miles from Wexford town.
There is an authentic Norman castle and a ringfort at Ferrycarrig as well as a replica of a round tower built in 1860 and the county council are availing of this basis and the scenery of the area to provide a suitable setting for a park which will have a wide variety of exhibits. They will include: a mesolithic and a neolithic habitation as well as a megalithic tomb; a standing stone and a stone circle; a ringfort with two houses; a monastery comprising church, four cells and guest house; a corn-drying kiln; a horizontal mill; a fulacht fiadh; a crannóg with four houses; a Viking boat which will be in a pond filled from the River Slaney and two Viking houses and a Norman motte and Bailey. It is planned to open the Heritage Park in the summer of 1987.
I would like to pay tribute also to the various learned bodies, institutes of learning and local societies who have been co-operating with the Commissioners of Public Works in preserving our heritage. I would like to mention particularly the Royal Irish Academy, Trinity College, the three University Colleges, the National Museum and the Maritime Institute of Ireland.
In general good progress is being made with the protection and conservation of our heritage and with developing a public awareness of its importance. More resources are required if we are to keep all the monuments the Senators would wish us to preserve. There have been significant increases in funds for national monuments under the present Government and I have confidence that when the economic situation improves further increases will be allocated for this important purpose. In the meantime, it is necessary for us to provide better legislation to ensure, as Senator Dooge said, that the machinery is in place. The present Bill will provide that machinery and I, therefore, ask the House to allow it to proceed to Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Next Stage?
There will be consultations with the Leader of the House and I am sure that information will be forthcoming soon.
Acting Chairman
I understand the date has to be determined now.
In two weeks time.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 19 November 1986.
Sitting suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.