I welcome the Minister to the House.
Death of Former Member. - Heritage Council Bill, 1994: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 1, which is a Government amendment, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1, which is on the first additional list of amendments, and amendment No. 22 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 3, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following definition:
"‘archaeology' means the study of past human societies, either as a whole or of various aspects of them, through the material remains left by those societies and the evidence of their environment, and includes the study of, searching and prospecting for——
(a) archaeological objects,
(b) monuments,
(c) buildings, or parts of any buildings, habitually used for ecclesiastical purposes,
(d) landscapes,
(e) seascapes,
(f) wrecks,
(g) climatological, ecological, geological or pedological factors which may be relevant to the understanding of past human societies or the distribution or nature of any of the foregoing;".
Tá áthas orm bheith ar ais arís chun an Chéim Choiste den oidhreacht seo a chuir ós bhur gcomhair.
The purpose of this amendment is to insert a definition and it is an attempt by me to respond to a number of points made on Second Stage. The Bill will benefit from such an amendment.
Amendment No. 22 states:
In page 15, lines 16 and 18, to delete paragraph 9 (2) and to substitute——
"(2) The Council shall establish standing committees on——
(a) wildlife, and
(b) archaeology,
and the Minister may appoint three persons who are not members of the Council to each standing committee.".
The existing National Heritage Council has an archaeological committee and the council is of the view that a standing committee dealing solely with national monuments would be unduly narrow in focus. Accordingly, I now propose that the standing committee to be established should be a standing committee in archaeology which, by definition, will encompass monuments but will also include matters related to archaeological excavations and to the presentation of archaeological objects. A definition of archaeology is therefore necessary. This is structured in such a way as to take account of the generally accepted view of what modern archaeology is and the provisions of Irish law which relate to archaeological matters.
The definition of archaeology as being the study of past human societies through their material remains is universally accepted by archaeologists and it is also generally accepted that environmental evidence must be taken into account in any such study, in other words, context. Having given an overall definition of archaeology, it is then necessary to list what is included in the study of archaeology, such as archaeological objects, monuments, landscapes, seascapes and wrecks. These are defined in section 2. Apart from the definitions of landscapes and seascapes, which are new, the definitions are the same as those used in the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987. I have stressed that I am bringing forward a corpus of legislation which should be taken together.
It is made clear that the study of these things can also include searching and prospecting for them because this could be an important aspect of archaeological research. I have included "buildings. or parts of any buildings, habitually used for ecclesiastical purposes". Since these were excluded from the definition of "monument", in the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987, the archaeology standing committee should not be precluded from dealing with issues relating to the remains of early structures, which form part of churches in regular present day use.
As there is an amendment to amendment No. 1, I call Senator Henry to move her amendment.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1:
Before paragraph (a), to insert the following paragraph:
"(a) architecture,".
The description of archaeology is bizarre because archaeology is a remote issue for most people. This is an important Bill because it puts the National Heritage Council on a statutory basis. As far as a large number of people are concerned, the National Heritage Council deals with what is around us. I do not understand how this definition of archaeology enables us to take care of the heritage of the last three centuries. The Minister has expanded the definition of archaeology here and it is a very full definition compared to that in many of the dictionaries I checked. Archaeology is usually regarded as megalithic and one could say that national monuments came up to the year 1700. I can see how national monuments have been taken into account here but we are leaving out architecture from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. To most people walking around Dublin Merrion Street would not come within the definition of archaeology.
Perhaps the Taoiseach would qualify for that.
The general public thinks archaeology covers much older buildings and would consider this example as coming under architecture, which is why I suggested the amendment. Architecture is not sufficiently recognised in the Minister's amendment, although I do recognise his definition.
Under the amendment the council will establish standing committees. These committees are important. I realise the council can establish other committees, but the committees they say they must have are really the Minister's. If we cannot have a separate standing committee on architecture, perhaps we could cover archaeology and architecture.
I am here on one of my rare visits before Christmas — I will be teaching in Trinity College until after that time — but I was contacted by the college and it made representations to me. However, I am sure it will not be aggravated by my public appearance here.
The points made to me were roughly similar to those made by my colleague, Senator Henry, which were principally the need to recognise specifically the built environment from the year 1700 on. I am happy with the Minister's explanation of archaeology and what is taken to be archaeology. It does not really matter what the popular conception of archaeology is; what happens within the Bill is that it defines its own terms. Therefore, what the Minister says here goes. However, I do have some concerns. I will probably anticipate putting down an amendment which I would like the Minister to consider: would he establish one of these committees specifically on architecture? This would be extremely valuable and I will explain why.
This is an unusually cultivated Minister and he has a good Department. In the past we have suffered from a situation where the apparent attitude of the State was that the only things of significance were structures built up to the year 1200 and after that period, there was nothing. There was a particular insensitivity to the development of 18th century architecture, with which I have been involved in a long campaign to help to preserve in this city; but it is not just in Dublin terms.
In section 2, there is a definition of a "heritage building", which is welcome indeed, and this covers some of the areas raised by Senator Henry. It says "heritage building includes any building, or part thereof, which is of significance because of its intrinsic architectural or artistic quality or its setting....". Says who? would be my attitude to that. I know there are buildings designated by the Minister as heritage buildings, but what about buildings that are not? Are they automatically to be deemed as of no architectural significance? When there is a difference of opinion, what is to protect these buildings, specifically buildings from the 17th to the 20th century on?
May I put on the record something that occurred while I was abroad convalescing. However, being a hoarder, I have managed to save all of the newspapers. I read with great interest in the Irish Times of Thursday, 22 September 1994, something which I am sure will interest the Cathaoirleach because it is really from his part of the country. I am referring to the proposed demolition of the courthouse in Carrick-on-Shannon, County Leitrim. Frank McDonald, the environment correspondent, has a very interesting article here saying that a 1989 report on the building by Shaffrey Associates, the Dublin architectural and historical building consultants, said it had “strong presence and exudes importance”, adding that it was still useful and can continue to serve the needs of its occupiers for as long as they would wish.
I am sure Members of the House are aware of the work of Paddy Shaffrey. He played a significant role in the revitalisation of the city of Kilkenny, which is now one of our jewels, — and in particular — quite a modest thing — the removal of these awful plastic fascia boards which revealed the architectural beauty of that wonderful city. Mr. Shaffrey is recognised internationally as an authority, and he says that this is a building of considerable architectural significance. However, on 22 September, The Irish Times reported that the previous week at a county council meeting the acting county engineer, Mr. Dick Walsh — no relation, I am sure, of the political correspondent of the same name — said the old building had no architectural merit. That is very worrying and I am sure that the Minister would share my concern.
Whatever about including architecture formally in the opening preamble — and it appears to be covered by "heritage building"— I would urge the Minister to consider the possibility of establishing a particular committee dealing with architecture. I will be tabling an amendment to this effect which I hope the Minister may consider. To continue with the argument on this briefly, this takes over some of the work of previous bodies. The composition of the membership of some of the previous bodies, as Senator Henry also mentioned, was routinely filled by the Department circulating departments of archaeology and so it was heavily weighted in favour of archaeology. This is a concern, not with this particular Minister; but unless there is a catastrophe of global proportions this Bill will outlast the present Minister and we must make provision for things further down the line. I would also be concerned that the spread of expertise may inadvertently be narrowed with an archaeological bias. In my opinion the best way to redress this important point is by accepting the idea of a standing committee dealing specifically with architecture. I will be tabling this amendment and perhaps the Minister will consider it later.
From my knowledge and reading of the definition of what archaeology is, I believe it would simply embrace all the points. I cannot accept Senator Henry's amendment in relation to that. If you single out one aspect then you will have to single out others as well. You would have to talk about the landscape and other aspects. You are actually encompassing in one word the whole definition of our culture and heritage. This definition is broad enough to encompass everything to reflect what we mean by our heritage.
I welcome the amendment to section 2 and in particular the part which deals with wrecks. This area has not been covered properly until now. I am sure the Minister is aware that an amount of material has been removed from the seabed and probably out of the country. To my knowledge, people around the coast are plying for hire and taking people out diving. Will it be necessary to rope them all in and grant a licence to them for diving?
I welcome the amendment moved by the Minister because it is an improvement on the term "archaeological objects" which was included in section 2 of the Bill. It clearly defines everything relating to archaeology, and having specifics put into the Bill at this stage is welcome. I can appreciate Senator Henry's concerns in relation to architecture and perhaps the Minister might be in a position to accommodate some of them. Subsection (c) of his amendment refers to "buildings, or parts of any buildings". The only problem there is that it is confined to buildings "used for ecclesiastical purposes". Perhaps the Minister might consider extending that subsection of his amendment to include buildings of national importance or historical significance, including buildings from the Georgian and other eras which are of significance. I can understand Senator Henry's particular concerns. The actual specifics of architecture are not included in the Bill. The Minister may be able to accommodate that by including it in subsection (c) of his amendment. The amendment tabled by the Minister is a welcome improvement on the original.
In broad terms, I welcome this amendment. However, I share Senator Henry's view that it would be desirable to include architecture in addition to the other matters which are mentioned. Our built heritage is very important. I am prepared to accept the point that "heritage building" covers some of this ground. However, it would be desirable to have it included in this section.
Another aspect of the amendment on which I seek the Minister's views is the question of landscape. There is a definition of landscape later in the Bill which includes "areas, sites, vistas and features of significant scenic, archaeological, geological, historical, ecological or other scientific interest". The point is that the landscape which we have is actually a product of much more immediate activity as well as of long term activity.
As a practising farmer, I can say with certainty to the Minister that we all committed crimes — I use the word advisedly — in the past 20 years out of a lack of knowledge. The Bill will help us in terms of that knowledge. However, we destroyed hedgerows and sites of castles or whatever because modern farming practices drove us in that direction. The question then arises of how we protect the landscape, which is probably the most intrinsic thing we have and which we all take for granted. We take Georgian squares less for granted but the landscape is just as important a part of our heritage.
The Minister will be aware that representations have been made to him and to other Ministers to develop a national landscape policy. I think that I am correct in saying that there will be a major conference in the Royal Hospital at the beginning of November to discuss landscape and landscape policy. There has to be a vehicle to protect the landscape, which is intrinsic to what we are.
The council is given discretion as to the standing committees it can establish. Then, having given it that discretion, we are now going to tell it to establish two standing committees on wildlife and archaeology. Are there others which might be considered? One which immediately springs to mind is one on waterways — canals, locks and buildings which were put up on our canals and rivers. I mentioned on Second Stage the question of the weirs on the rivers and whether they are within the scope of the Bill. I suspect that they are under the definition of monuments. Is the Minister prepared to consider additional standing committees? If so, is that just a matter purely for the discretion of the council or would the Minister have any input into that?
I wish to express my gratitude to the Members for the spirit in which they are approaching this legislation. I have listened with great care to the points which have been raised and I can see the position from which Senators are coming. I want to try to address it as positively as I can.
First, I will dispose of something about which I must restrain myself, which is the boundaries of academic disciplines. I have a very extreme view on that. The sealed walls around the narrow definitions of disciplines have not been to the benefit of either teachers or scholars in the past. That is a personal rather than a ministerial view. I am totally happy with my broader definition of archaeology.
There is a gap between the definition which someone researched a long time ago in preparation for being a university teacher and the definition of intellectual curiosity that is facilitated by the media allowing greater access to subjects and so forth and I was trying to strike a balance. I am happy with the my inclusion of archaeological objects, monuments. buildings, or parts of any buildings which are habitually used for ecclesiastical purposes, landscapes, seascapes, wrecks and climatological, ecological or geological factors.
I am not being difficult. It is one view as to where the boundaries of a subject are, and I am not suggesting that there are not practitioners with a different view; there may be some. People differ as to where the subject begins and ends but I took my stand with its wider definition. I believed this was the way to frame a legislative space in the Bill.
I wanted to emphasise a point which is important to me. I defined "monument" quite widely in the national monuments legislation and I believe it is necessary to take these Bills together. The new wildlife Bill which I hope to introduce next year will address other issues in relation to landscape. I am trying to maintain a balance between the three pieces of legislation as each has its separate remit.
The important point is that I am making the Heritage Council statutory and independent of me. It is given a mandate in the legislation but there is nothing to stop it meeting and suggesting that new legislation is needed in a certain area. If that is the case I will not be slow to respond. If one allows people autonomy and responsibility, one must be willing to let them debate the existence of deficiencies. I will legislate where I am satisfied that there are deficiencies.
I am impressed by the arguments and will examine them further. Rather than amending the text at this stage I would prefer to allow the Bill go to the Dáil and be reported back to this House. I will explore the possibility of having additional select committees to deal with both architecture and waterways.
One must remember that the heritage council inherits — that may be the wrong word — what we state in the Bill. It will be obliged to have the committees we specify but it is not precluded from having any other committee it wishes. It would be my intention that as the Heritage Council and its committees, both standing and non-standing, deliberate on different issues, they may well identify spaces that have not been covered. However, the general thrust of this legislation is an attempt, in conjunction with other legislation, to cover all the territory.
One of the issues brought to my attention during the summer relates to fossils and rocks on cliffs. People are hammering them off and selling them for gardens. When I examined that problem I concluded that it can best be dealt with in the forthcoming wildlife legislation. I introduce most of my material in the Seanad and have said that the Bills should be taken together as a package.
In response to the reasonable arguments made by Senators by the time the Bill completes this process, I will seek to accommodate these two further standing committees.
The Minister indicated in his amendment that ecclesiastical buildings which have been in use for ecclesiastical purposes will be covered. He will be aware that at different stages I raised the fact that buildings which were being used for ecclesiastical purposes were not being grant aided or supported financially by the Commissioners of Public Works, for example. Does this amendment cover buildings like St. Mary's Cathedral in Limerick, which sought financial commitments from the Commissioners of Public Works but which was deprived of them as it did not qualify because ecclesiastical services were taking place in the building?
This brings such buildings into the remit and consideration of the new Heritage Council, which will be able to consider this. I do not want to mislead the House in any way: the position remains the same in the national monuments legislation, although it is being changed in this legislation. The Heritage Council will be entitled to consider this, prepare policy and respond to the needs, which is appropriate. The national monuments legislation is not affected by the change I am making here.
I am heartened by the Minister's positive response. Would it be possible for him to accept an amendment on Report Stage to include a standing committee on architecture? Generally speaking, this is something which the public strongly urges. If I may expand, taking into account the previous discussion about ecclesiastical buildings and so on, such a committee could deal with not only the building as defined. One can never totally or satisfactorily give a definition which covers all circumstances. There is a constant loss and attrition of articles of considerable merit from inside buildings, not only from ecclesiastical ones but from other historical buildings, which have not always been covered by legislation — for example, St. Mary's Church, Mary Street, where the beautiful reredos, the altar, the pulpit and the furnishings were ripped out and there was no come back. The 18th century box pews, pulpit and stained glass in St. George's Church are apparently not covered.
A standing committee on architecture, with the type of expertise which is clearly available from architectural historians and some archaeologists, is needed. I welcome the Minister's breach of the academic boundaries because we are often too confined in university life in little watertight compartments. There is the practical matter of attrition and I mentioned two or three important ecclesiastical buildings in the city. I welcome what Senator Daly said about St. Mary's Cathedral in Limerick which is a beautiful building, and I am glad that it may be covered. However, this concerns not only ecclesiastical buildings and their contents, including altars, stained glass, etc.
The biggest scandal in this city concerns the rape of 18th century decorative material, principally fireplaces. A Bossi fireplace discovered in a house, which could have been bought a few years ago for £25,000 or £30,000, could be sold in Sotheby's or Christie's for £276,000. It is difficult for a business person to resist the temptation of maximising his or her profit. By and large, buildings in this jurisdiction have not had their interiors listed.
I do not believe it is appropriate to go into that type of minutiae of detail in this legislation, which I welcome. However, I strongly believe that a standing committee on architecture would be a useful addition. The Minister has kindly indicated that he may take up my suggestion in this area. May I make a parochial plea which I am sure the Cathaoirleach will endorse? This is the reforming and amending House of the Oireachtas. That is our function and we are very frequently criticised for not performing our function adequately. A number of us have raised matters and, listening to Senator Henry, I assume that she has also been briefed by university colleagues. Quite a number of us have made this case.
The case for a standing committee on architecture is generally supported. The Minister has said that this is interesting, he has listened carefully, as he always does, to the arguments, he is sympathetic and he will consider altering the legislation himself by the time it gets to the Dáil. I make a plea for the dignity of this House, that perhaps the Minister might give an indication that it would not be regarded as tendentious if I were to put down this amendment on Report Stage and he might even consider accepting it and giving recognition to this House of the Oireachtas of the function for which it is appointed.
I wish to raise one other matter, which is completely divorced from the central body of what I was saying, although it does occur in the same section so I presume I am entitled to raise it. The Minister says that heritage objects are objects over 50 years old. I assume there is some very good reason for them having to be over 50 and since I have just turned 50 myself, I would qualify as a heritage object. There are works of art of very considerable significance——
There is an amendment down to that effect.
In that case I will sit down.
Senator Henry, would you like to comment on the amendment?
I would. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response and I am very grateful to Senator Norris, Senator Taylor-Quinn and Senator Dardis for their support. I might have been wiser to follow the path Senator Taylor-Quinn suggested. Architecture is very important. Senator Ormonde said that if we mentioned architecture we would have to mention everything else, but we do mention everything else — landscapes, monuments, seascapes, wrecks, etc. Coming from a discipline which is just too keen on having precise definitions, that is important. The Minister saying he will reconsider the matter and Senator Norris saying he may put forward an amendment on Report Stage gives me great heart. I would like to think this would be possible.
What Senator Norris said regarding heritage buildings is important. I have been reading the explanatory memorandum and the Bill together and I am left in some confusion. Is it in order to speak about this, a Chathaoirligh? Is it only a heritage building if it is designated as such by the Minister? If so, the Minister had better start compiling lists at once, otherwise how will we know which are heritage buildings? I am confused about that.
That query is more appropriate to the section itself. You may take it up on the section. Senator Dardis, had you a query? I am anxious to bring this amendment to a conclusion if possible.
I thank the Minister for his reply in respect to my suggestion that, for instance, waterways might be considered as part of one of the standing committees, and I am prepared to wait rather than to put down an amendment on Report Stage to see what the outcome of his deliberations on that might be. I was interested in his comments on the protection of fossils. By way of aside, perhaps he might consider some of the fossils in here and protect us when our time comes. I thank the Minister for his reply.
I wish to explain one or two points. The answer to Senator Henry's last question is yes. Having said yes in relation to heritage buildings that I might specify, on page five of the Bill, lines 33 to 38, it will be seen that the Heritage Council itself can have a much wider consideration, in fact that is already in the legislation:
"works of architecture" includes structures, buildings traditional and designed, and groups of buildings including streetscapes and urban vistas, which are of significant architectural or engineering quality, or of intrinsic, historical, aesthetic or scientific interest, together with their attendant grounds, amenities and contents;
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1 seeks to insert "architecture" at the head of the list of areas to be taken into consideration. I have offered to go further not merely to proceed in this way but to include it as a standing committee as I propose to do with waterways.
I take the point made by Senator Norris with regard to the functions of the House, and it is in response to the arguments made in the House that I am willing to consider it. My difficulty, however, is that I hope to have this legislation enacted quickly as I wish to establish the mechanisms and have it in place because it fits with other legislation. That is my only consideration. Whatever decision is made on that, I would prefer to indicate to the Seanad that I will — not may — make those changes regarding the two standing committees. The House may take that as an assurance so that when the legislation is completed in the other House and reported back to this House, it will include the amendments sought. I would prefer to take this approach rather than have to accept the text as presented to me, because I can go further and, for example, include the other area which arose in this debate — waterways.
The Minister is indicating that he will do what we wish. I am happy that there is to be a standing committee on architecture and in this respect the Minister has given a firm assurance to the House for which I am grateful. It would, therefore, be pestilential on my part to proceed with an amendment at this stage.
The importance of this issue is clarified and made more particular by the Minister's remarks when he acknowledged that heritage buildings protected by this legislation are heritage buildings which are designated. This leaves a wide range of buildings exposed and the Minister, who has a wide variety of responsibilities, cannot be expected to spend all his time designating buildings.
The balance of the Bill is in favour of archaeology, and many people are glad that is the case because of the pillage of very valuable and important elements of our archaeological heritage. However, there is a concern that without the specifications of a committee on architecture, some buildings would inadvertently be exposed, including some of their contents, such as fire places and so on. This is especially true in the conflict which obtained between a leading architectural expert, Mr. Shaffrey, and the agent of a council who wished to demolish in order to erect other buildings as reported in The Irish Times on 22 September 1994. If that building was not specifically designated by the Minister, it would not be protected.
The establishment of a standing committee on architecture would go some way to resolve this situation. I will not be difficult and I will not proceed with the amendment because I accept the Minister's bona fides and congratulate him on the Bill. I am also happy with the section as it stands.
Is amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1 being pressed?
I am happy with the Minister's reply and will not be pressing the amendment.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
I move amendment No 2:
In page 3, between lines 24 and 25, to inset the following definition:
"cultural heritage" includes language, music, dance, song, folklore, paintings and photographs;".
The Bill does not accommodate a wide ranging area in our heritage. I appreciate there is a wide debate as to what cultural heritage entails. There can be many definitions covering a variety of areas. However, part of our heritage and part of us as a people and a nation is what is inherent in our language, music, song, traditional folklore and the old paintings, pictures and photographs which are available. These are fundamental to our heritage and could be lost unless the necessary legislation is introduced.
While the Bill before the House deals with heritage, and especially the built heritage, it does not deal with what is a more fundamental heritage, that is, what we are as a people. Nothing in the Bill addresses this. The purpose of this amendment is to deal with cultural heritage — language, music, song and so on.
There are wide variations from one province to another with regard to types of music, style of dance, etc. and unless something is done to protect, maintain and at least keep some account of these important matters we could lose everything. This is also true of photographs and pictures. Senators will admit that they no longer see today many sights which were commonplace in their younger days. The only way this history can be preserved now is through pictures, but in many instances, for example, with regard to the traditional ways of farming, they are no longer available.
Hopefully the Minister will accept this amendment because it is fundamental to us as a people. It refers to the life of the nation and its people, our heritage and what has made us what we are today. It is an important issue which must be considered.
I am sympathetic to the case made by Senator Taylor-Quinn. However, I am talking about a corpus of legislation. I wish to be as helpful as possible to Senators who have put a great deal of work into considering this legislation. Lest anybody worry about the matter we have disposed of, that is buildings designated by me or in public ownership or whatever, the House will appreciate that those in private ownership can be very important, but it requires a more complex approach. However, if legislation is needed in this area, however complex, I will attempt it, but I want to see first how the other area works.
Regarding the point made by Senator Taylor-Quinn, the Irish word for heritage is "oidhreactht", which has a much wider definition. In this respect there is a debate as to what constitutes heritage, and if we have inherited narrow definitions; in some areas "heritage" includes houses, parklands etc. However, the word "oidhreacht" is much wider and includes folk history and so on.
Senator Taylor-Quinn's amendment proposes that "‘cultural heritage' includes language, music, dance, song, folklore, paintings and photographs;". Paintings and photographs are clearly encompassed in the legislation. However, if one refers to language, music, dance and folklore, it is not that they are, or are not, part of our cultural heritage; it is that they are part of our cultural heritage which it is appropriate to protect and sustain in this legislation. For example, in the case of the language, there is a statutory role for Bord na Gaeilge. With regard to music, dance and song, two basic pieces of legislation dealing with the Arts Council contain functions dealing with these areas. In addition, the Folklore Commission deals with folklore.
I am unable to accept the amendment because at the outset I made it clear that we would concentrate on delivering what protections we can for the physical heritage. This is not to say that the cultural heritage does not include all the matters raised, but rather that they are better dealt with in other legislation, such as that encompassing the two statutory bodies referred to.
Paintings and photographs come within the scope of the Bill, under the definition of "heritage objects" set out in section 2. From a technical point of view, the definition of "cultural heritage" suggested in the amendment is not consistent with definitions throughout the Bill. Regretfully, I cannot accept the amendment.
I am disappointed the Minister cannot accept the amendment. However, I am delighted he stated that paintings and photographs are encompassed in the Bill under "heritage objects". I welcome that and I hope everything will be done to ensure maximum protection of those aspects of our heritage.
I am particularly concerned about folklore, music and dance. Every year the local characters who have a wealth of tradition, whether music or folklore, die and only records of them that remain are interviews by RTE or others. It is unfortunate that we depend on such people to maintain our folklore and music. The Minister comes from County Clare and is fully aware of the position to which I refer. For example, what is the statutory mechanism to maintain records of the music of Michael Russell and the Crehans and keep it as part of our heritage? The reality is that it is kept only if a recorder from RTE or elsewhere is sufficiently interested and make a tape which is subsequently played. Otherwise, this aspect of our culture heritage is lost. I hope the Minister will accept the broader dimension in the legislation. I would appreciate it if he would examine this aspect.
I welcome the fact that photographs and paintings can be included under "heritage objects" and I appreciate that language is already taken care of in other areas, such as the universities. My main concern is song, music and dance. This area is not taken care of and it is an important part of our heritage. I hope the Minister will review it. I appreciate the difficulty and that the Bill appears to be specifically taking care of the physical aspects of our heritage. However, I ask him to examine this aspect for Report Stage.
The views expressed are not exclusive. Music, song and dance are important but they are different from physical heritage. The Bill is structured in such a way as to look after physical heritage. There are ways of dealing with the musical legacy of Michael Russell, and the Senator mentioned one way. This can probably be best provided — and we have gone some way towards this already — by making adequate provision for the recording of music and song. Recently I opened a new remastering facility which was assisted by my Department. This will ensure that better quality original forms are available.
These matters are better dealt with by the other legislation. The Arts Council has specific functions in that regard. The areas mentioned in the amendment have received significantly increased funding, over 32 per cent, since I came into office. I have no difficulty expressing agreement in relation to these matters. However, I cannot agree that this Bill is the place in which to address them. They are best addressed in legislation which stands behind the other bodies I mentioned.
Can I take it that the Minister will examine this point with a view to amending existing legislation?
As somebody who is quite close to the arts, my first concern is to assist the music, songs and dance, being performed at present and to ensure that they are part of vibrant contemporary expression. This is very important. I know some of the musicians who are frequently referred to in this regard, such as the late Seamus Ennis. He would be horrified if he and his Morris Oxford car were put into the definition of a type of monument. My point, which does not take from Senator Taylor-Quinn's, is that there is contemporary expression which draws from heritage behind music, song and dance. This matter is addressed through legislation governing the arts. Recording and remastering techniques are important. These are considerations I will bear in mind in examining how the other legislation works. However, they do not easily fit into this legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 23, after "country" to insert "or".
This amendment is non-contentious. The existing definition of "heritage building" refers to buildings of architectural artistic significance or of local or national historical significance. In the course of the Second Stage debate, Senator Kelly stated that the definition of "heritage building" was somewhat narrow in that it did not include, in addition to buildings associated with local or national history, buildings associated with the history of other countries, for example, the birthplaces of people who became famous outside Ireland.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that such buildings are included in the definition of "heritage building". I am responding to a point made on Second Stage. Heritage buildings are referred to section 10 of the Bill which affords increased protection to such buildings owned by public authorities, that is the State, State agencies and local authorities. Under section 10, the council may offer advice on the preservation and upkeep of such buildings and the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht may, on the advice of the council, designate a building owned by a public authority as a heritage building. A public authority may not proceed with a proposal to demolish, alter significantly or dispose of such a building contrary to the advice of the council unless the Minister agrees to the proposal or to a modified form of the proposal or the Government agrees to the proposal.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, line 30, to delete "50" and substitute "25".
I am glad Senator Kelly is in the House. Having witnessed her victory on amendment No. 3, I am confident she will support this amendment because she recommended it on Second Stage. This prompted me to put down this amendment and when we come to vote on it, it will be interesting to see how she votes.
However, there is a serious point which was well made on Second Stage. It relates to heritage objects, which are defined in the Bill as it stands as 50 years or more, whereas the amendment suggests a 25 year limit. There are good grounds for this move, particularly in the case of industry which is included as part of the heritage objects. The pace of technological change is such that we can all recall items which were quite common in the country 25 years ago but no longer. For example, the steam engine would come well within the 50 year period and I regard some industrial items as part of our heritage. If there is a deficiency in all the definitions in this section it is that it does not clearly define the industrial part of our heritage. Perhaps this is due to the type of our society, which was not as industrialised as our nearest island neighbour. There are items of farming machinery which, were commonplace 25 years ago but are extremely rare today and they are frequently found only on tourist farms around the country. Unless they are looked after they will disappear and they are part of our heritage. One could come to a ludicrous point and say that the Minister's tie is of such quality and art that it might need to be protected within the year or even after dinner in Tinakilly House.
The pace of technological change, particularly in items of industrial derivation, makes 50 years far too generous a time span. It also applies to literature; limited edition books might be quite rare and of value yet be well within the 50 year limit. I ask the Minister to sympathetically consider this amendment which was so well argued for on Second Stage by Senator Kelly.
I have to support Senator Dardis as to do otherwise might leave me accused of hypocrisy. I made this point on Second Stage and he has reiterated it. I can only agree with him and ask the Minister if there was a particular reason why 50 years was chosen. Was it just a convenient figure? If so, perhaps 25 years might be equally convenient and he could concede to the amendment. Is there an historical or legal reason 50 years was chosen? Perhaps 50 years is used in other legislation and to substitute something else in this legislation would negate other legislation with which I am not familiar.
I support Senator Dardis and I am interested in what Senator Kelly had to say on the matter. If she wishes to have a reason to cross the floor of the House we could have a vote — it is as good an issue as who should be President of the High Court.
Senator Dardis and Senator Kelly have spoken with sense on this issue. Can the Minister explain why it is necessary to have any fixed term at all? The Minister spoke earlier about academic compartmentalisation which can be arbitrary — boundaries can be set at a particular time and they remain and cannot be breached from that point on.
When we think historically we tend to think in compartments of 25 or 30 or 50 years and this strikes me when thinking about the troubles in Northern Ireland as against our own troubles. We tend to consider 1919 to 1921 as a little compartment and, in the same way, we think of the troubles in Northern Ireland of the last 25 years as a compartment in history. Sometimes they are meaningful and sometimes not, but in this case I wonder if the intrinsic value of the object does not need to be tied down by a 25 or 50 year limit. They are arbitrary limits and could at some later stage provide ballast for some bureaucratic interpretation which might work against the spirit of the Bill.
I suggest to the Minister that he might save Senator Kelly from having to cross the floor of the House on this issue and incur all the associated wrath and penalties.
I will have to stand alone on this at the moment. That which is related to heritage should be old — I like old things and I do not like things around me that are only 15 or 20 years old. I like antique furniture or that which is rare. If I had something which is 25 years old I could still find it in the shops. I know that the limits are arbitrary but I could not say that something which is 25 years old is of absolute heritage value. It has to be old to be rated as heritage.
I support Senator Dardis. There is an important point at which something is old fashioned before it is old, and something which is old fashioned can be quite valuable. I am thinking of art nouveau in this context, an enormous amount of which was destroyed before it was considered to be of value. I know that antique furniture is extraordinarily valuable and some things can become valuable due to technological changes and changes in fashions. Perhaps therefore the Minister might consider dropping the age limit.
I support the view put forward by Senator Manning. Why did the Minister feel it necessary to include a specific age limit of 50 years? He is slotting things into specific compartments and that is not necessarily wise.
The Minister himself could be classified within the 50 year category. I am not sure if the Minister would be recognised as an heritage object but many of his works would be on the way to becoming heritage within a certain number of years. If he reduced the limit to 25 years or if he lifted the limit altogether, some of his works would enter into the classification sooner.
I find myself siding with the 25 year limit. I am also looking at the next amendment and wondering if we are going to remove books altogether. Will this rule out the works of Mr. Gerry Adams, for example? A limit of 50 years is reasonable enough, yet there are things which may need to be protected which would not be 50 years old and it would be a shame if that facility was not afforded these objects. Perhaps the Minister would examine the matter and a compromise might be arrived at — that is the best way in politics. I am thinking of objects that are not 25 years old yet might soon be — for example, the wood carvings that were done in the concentration camps in the Six Counties. There are many things which might need to be protected as part of our heritage.
I support the suggestion that the Minister consider not having any age limit. The objects which occurred to me were postage stamps and I can think of postage stamps of only ten years old which would be part of our heritage. There are many other objects and it would be a shame not to regard them as part of our heritage. How necessary is it to have an age limit?
One is tempted to pursue this matter indefinitely, having driven a wedge between the partners on the opposite side and, not only that, but having driven a wedge within one of the partners.
We can bear it.
There is a contradiction in the Bill as drafted. It says that heritage objects mean objects of 50 years old which are works of art. There is a huge subjective assessment as to what is a work of art. On the one hand we are writing the 50 years in stone and on the other hand we are considering works of art. It is rather difficult to define a work of art and because of that the 50 year consideration becomes more ridiculous.
I am anxious to have legislation with which people are happy. I will not delay on this matter but to explain where the figure 50 came from. There are commissions which reported on the matter of heritage objects. I do not have the notes with me but if I recall correctly from memory, the Hamilton commission produced a figure of 50 years. I take the point that when these commissions reported they were looking at a definition that might, at that time, have been overloaded in favour of art. I must take account of one point about which I am in strong agreement with Senator Dardis. It relates to industrial artefacts. There is very fine documentation on the industrial archaeology of Belfast, for example, and I agree that there would be equivalence in the agricultural area.
Members have asked why that figure is included at all. It was included to ensure that there would not be wasteful arguments about overlapping between the Arts Council — which deals with the contemporary — and the Heritage Council. I am not hung up on the figure 50. I will accept the figure 25; I accept the amendment.
This is a historic moment.
Well done.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 5a on the second list of additional amendments is related to Amendment No. 5 and both may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 31, to delete "(including books)"
In the course of the Second Stage debate Senator Taylor-Quinn stated that the definition of national heritage in section 6 of the Bill did not specifically include the many valuable documents in institutions around the country. Subsequently, I received representations from genealogical societies requesting the specific inclusion of the genealogical heritage in the definition of national heritage. The purpose of amendment No. 5, therefore, is to include documents and records of cultural importance, such as genealogical records, for example, ecclesiastical records of births, baptisms and marriages and other documents of historical interest, in the definition of heritage objects.
In section 2 heritage objects are included in the definition of national heritage. In section 6, which sets out the functions of the council in relation to that heritage, if amendment No. 5 is agreed to amendment No. 5a would be unnecessary.
The Minister is moving in the direction my amendment intended to address. I can explain briefly the reason for my amendment and the need it seeks to redress. Like the Minister I was contacted by a number of genealogical societies, in particular the Dún Laoghaire Genealogical Society which is one of the premier such societies in the country. Indeed, having Denis, The O'Conor Don, Prince of Connacht, as its president should certainly give it a standing among genealogical societies which perhaps few others, if any, could equal.
This society welcomes the Bill and believes it will make an important contribution. The society is concerned, however, at the absence of any provision for the protection of what it calls our genealogical heritage—
as represented by the documented record of the people of Ireland held by the State, local authorities. churches and various private collections. These records, many predating civil registration, are the only source for the study of Irish genealogy due to the great loss of the bulk of our public records in the fire at the Four Courts in 1922.
The society continues:
The information contained, for example, in church registers is the most comprehensive record of the people of Ireland in whom this Bill proposes to establish ownership of our national heritage and therefore vitally important to the study of the history, genealogy and social conditions of our people. While ownership of the original documents is not in question the society proposes that the inclusion of our "genealogical heritage" would provide for the microfilming of all such records and their availability, as a national resource, in either the National Library or the national archive.
As I understand it, the proposal the Minister is making does not go far enough to meet the wishes of the society. The Minister is anxious to meet the case being made by the bona fide genealogical societies and I suggest, if possible, that the Minister's officials or the Minister, meet these people between now and when the Bill is before the Dáil to see if their concerns can be met. The wording I am proposing would go somewhat further but there is not a huge difference between what the Minister and I are proposing.
This is an opportunity we will not have again because I hope this Bill will not have to be changed or replaced for a long time. There is a genuine case to be discussed and I would be happy if the Minister while going ahead with his own amendment, could arrange to see if something is missing from the scope of this Bill which could usefully be incorporated into it. I suspect we will not get to Report Stage today.
We will.
There is many a slip between what a Minister hopes for and what the Upper House can deliver.
If all Stages of the Bill are completed today I hope the Minister will agree that either he or his officials will meet with the representatives of the genealogical societies to see how their concerns can be met in the Bill if what the Minister proposes today — and I accept his proposal — does not go far enough.
I welcome the broadening of this definition. It has come to my notice that many documents and what would be regarded as other records which would not be defined as books have been lost since the foundation of the State. People have been more than careless about caring for records and documents and it is time they were protected and preserved.
This is a good amendment. I hope the word "records" includes all records, not necessarily written but on tape, magnetic tape or recorded by some other means. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that.
In answer to Senator Lydon, it does include all forms of recording.
Senator Manning makes an interesting case. The effect of amendment No. 4 should be taken into account. Effectively, every record over 25 years old is now included. I accept the spirit of the Senator's amendment. I have no difficulty with the society meeting officials in my Department. The only difference between us now is that Senator Manning's amendment uses the phrase "all works of genealogical importance" while the Bill provides for all records over 25 years of age.
I would like to have the word "genealogical" inserted in the Bill. Perhaps, between now and Report Stage, I could make a proposal to the Minister as to how this amendment could include the word "genealogical" which would offer reassurance to the people I have mentioned that their needs are being addressed. The word does not appear in the Minister's amendment and I do not anticipate him having an objection to it.
Senator Manning might end up frustrating the intentions of the people who have made their case to both of us. It might be useful for the meeting proposed by the Senator to take place. If the Bill includes my wording — which refers to documents and records — everything is included. If the wording is narrow there will always be those who will say that something is non-genealogical. This facilitates argument and exclusion. I opted for the the general inclusion in the full understanding that it incorporated the genealogical aspect. I have no difficulty with meeting officials of the association between now and the final printing of the Act. I think they will see the form of words we are using is more encompassing.
My wording is defective. If the word "genealogical" can be added to the Bill, perhaps not now but at a later stage, that would go a considerable distance to meeting the point I am pressing, which the Minister accepts.
I do not want to mislead this House because we are working well and improving this Bill. There are other amendments which I might accept. I may find it easier to put a reference to genealogy at another part of the Bill rather than in this section. I will look at the matter in that spirit.
I thank the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5a not moved.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following paragraph:
"(d) a regional authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1991,".
This seeks to include regional authorities within the scope of the Bill. The section contains a catalogue of what constitutes a public authority and it would be a deficiency to leave out regional authorities, particularly since section 41 (2) (b) of the Local Government Act, 1991, states that a regional authority shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession, an official seal, with power to sue and be sued in its corporate name and, most importantly, to acquire, hold and dispose of land or an interest in land. This is grounds to have regional authorities included in the Bill.
I support Senator Dardis' amendment. The regional authorities have come into being and should be encompassed in this Bill.
I accept this amendment; it strengthens the Bill.
This is likely to go to my head. It is becoming habitual.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 27, to delete "national".
The purpose of this amendment is to delete the term "national" used to describe the policies and priorities for the protection, etc., of the national physical heritage, which under this section will be the function of the council to propose. I felt on reflection that the term "national" could be construed in a restrictive sense. The council should, in addition to proposing national policies and priorities, be able also to do the same for regional and local areas.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 8 and 23 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following paragraph:
"(d) seek to protect the national heritage.".
The Bill as drafted asks the council to do certain tasks and gives it certain responsibilities; all of them are worthy but many are aspirational. The Minister is determined to protect the national heritage in addition to the other matters he asks the council to do in the Bill. That is the reason for suggesting the insertion of a clause seeking to protect the national heritage. This will not impose an obligation on the council to protect the national heritage; it only asks them to seek to protect it, which is a slight distinction.
The related amendment deals with the Title, which currently states this legislation is to promote knowledge and appreciation of the national heritage. It should go further and include an aspiration to protect that heritage. The Minister has said on several occasions during the debate that this legislation is not in isolation; there are other related Acts and Bills. The National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1993, includes a provision for the protection and preservation of archaeological objects, so that is a precedent for this amendment. It would strengthen the Bill considerably if the council was asked to do this and I know the Minister wants it to do so. The amendments are moved in that spirit.
I see Senator Dardis' point. I will accept amendment No. 23, which is a good proposal and will strengthen the Bill, but I cannot accept amendment No. 8. I believe an amendment to the Title to include protection in the aims of the Bill, together with the general provisions in section 6 (1), will meet the concerns of Senator Dardis.
Other agencies, such as the Office of Public Works, are involved in the protection of heritage and the council's role in this respect will be to assist and support those agencies and the individuals and voluntary organisations also involved. The council will also propose policies and priorities for the protection of national heritage.
If I accept amendment No. 23 I would not wish to accept amendment No. 8 because that might diminish rather than expand the council's role in this area. If the word "protection" is in the Title, the phrase "seek to protect" might be seen to be a lesser power.
At this stage I believe half a loaf is so good that I will forego the remainder. I accept what the Minister says and thank him for accepting amendment No. 23. I accept his argument that if it is included in the Title it is desirable to leave it out of the other part of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 9 to 17, inclusive, and 19 are cognate and all may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 20, after "authority" to insert ", person or group".
This is a difficult area. There is an obligation on us to ensure that not only those items in public ownership but also those in private ownership can be protected and preserved and the council has a legitimate interest in those items. In County Kildare there are two great buildings, Castletown House and Carton House. The Minister has been to Castletown and knows it is in public ownership, but Carton is not. They are buildings of international stature and are a major national resource. As I said to him on Second Stage, I would like to see Carton in State ownership because that is the most effective way of preserving it for future generations. We can argue about the type of society which created those buildings and whether or not it was appropriate. Those buildings are there and are of immense value.
This is why I have attempted to widen the scope from local authorities to include "persons or groups". By "groups" I am thinking of things which may be in the ownership of PLC companies, for instance. It is probable that industrial items may be owned by such companies. This is why I have put down these amendments. Amendments Nos. 10 to 17, inclusive, are for reasons of consistency because "persons or groups" must be referred to repeatedly throughout the section.
The Minister referred earlier to the complexity of legislation and I am prepared to accept that point. How can we achieve the objective I believe the Minister has, that is, to ensure that items which are in private ownership are, to the extent that it is possible, protected and preserved? This applies particularly to these buildings, the architecture of which is of international significance. It imposes a huge obligation on a private owner to try to preserve this type of building. Enough of them have fallen down over the past 50 years, even the past 25 years, for us to ensure that more of them do not collapse.
I have some sympathy with the amendment. However, we must resist the temptation to try to solve all the problems we have through this legislation. The provision of section 10 is a major new initiative and will provide special protection for heritage buildings in public ownership. There are other legislative codes dealing with the protection of built heritage such as the listing procedures under the Planning Acts and the provisions for making preservations orders under the National Monuments Acts. These are the instruments we have and they provide protection for buildings of significance.
I am conscious that the existing legislation is not perfect and I assure the House that I am considering introducing further legislative proposals to deal with the situation. However, I cannot do this in the way suggested by the Senator. If I were to accept his series of related amendments, it would be welcomed by private owners of buildings of significance, who genuinely want them preserved and handed on, but it would be strongly resisted on a constitutional basis by other private owners. There is an inescapable constitutional problem, but I do not believe this is insuperable.
I would like to address what I can in this legislation, that is, buildings in public ownership, and later deal with this issue, in separate legislation if necessary. I will consider the opinion of the new Heritage Council on the matter. I am not leaving matters as they are. In response to the core of this argument, in an amendment I have tabled to section 11 I propose to enable the council to provide advice to the individual property owner, inter alia, and this may go some way towards meeting the concern expressed. If my amendment to section 11 is accepted, the council will be available to the individual private owner in an advisory way and I will begin to look at the obstacles to addressing the issue of what is in private ownership and at overcoming in a fundamental way the constitutional difficulties this poses.
Is a heritage building a building which is designated as such by the Heritage Council, as provided for in section 10 (4), is it as described in section 2, or is it both? Section 2 provides a definition of such buildings whereas section 10 (4) states that:
The Minister may by order, on the advice of the Council and after consultation with the responsible public authority, designate a building as a heritage building to which this section applies.
Is there a contradiction between these sections? Must a heritage building be a designated one?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator, you are straying a little from the amendments. Your point is more appropriate to discussion on the section. At that stage I will allow you to contribute.
I expected the Minister to raise the constitutional problem and I accept this is a problem. To return to the specific case I have in mind, which relates to Carton House. I mentioned this matter to the Minister on Second Stage. There was a proposal before Kildare County Council for a material contravention of the county development plan so that Carton House could be developed into a luxury hotel and two golf courses. This was an extremely difficult decision for the members of the council. On the one hand, there is an absolute desire to preserve the building and the integrity of its parkland — the Minister spoke about parkland earlier — which is integrally associated with it. On the other hand, there is the possibility that if we do not allow this type of development, the whole edifice would fall down because of lack of funds. The private owners, unless they have immense personal wealth, cannot preserve the building. This is the difficult problem confronting the members of the local authority. In addition, there is the question of the jobs which would be generated. If we allowed this development to take place, some of us would be doing so on the basis that if we prevented it we could envisage circumstances in 15 years time where there would be nothing but houses from Leixlip to Maynooth and just an island where Carton House is situated. The ideal solution is one which I urge the Minister and the Government to take on board, that is for the State to acquire the property and it would then come within the scope of the Bill. In terms of the substantive aspect of the amendments, I accept what the Minister says and will withdraw them.
I appreciate the point made by Senator Dardis. I am not suggesting that my amendment to section 11 deals with all of the matters he had in mind when he tabled his amendments. My amendment links heritage buildings in private ownership to the Heritage Council in an advisory way. I want legislation to be enacted in areas over which we have a clear and easy management process. I then want to look at areas to which it is appropriate to extend legislation but which are more difficult. I will have the opinion of the council on this. I did not want to hold up the whole corpus of legislation. I want all the legislation to hang together and to be on certain ground. I will introduce further legislation in future. I appreciate that Senator Dardis, by withdrawing his amendments, understands my difficulty.
Senator Henry referred to the definition of heritage buildings in the definition section. Section 10 (4) refers to such buildings to which the legislation applies, which in this case specifies public ownership.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 10 to 17, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 7, lines 40 and 41, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b).
This amendment relates to the National Heritage Council giving advice on work the local authority might propose to carry out which would affect a heritage building. However, the Minister or the Government must agree to the proposal or to a modified form of the proposal. The amendment seeks to remove the Minister's discretion and to make it a matter for the Government.
Senator Norris said we have a cultivated Minister. I was not sure if he meant that in an agricultural sense or in an artistic sense, but I accept that the Minister is a cultivated person. Unfortunately, history teaches us — not only in respect of this legislation, but in respect of other legislation — that successors may not always be as enlightened as the people who bring the Bills to the House. Because the Minister's successor may not be as enlightened as he is, it should fall to more than one person to make such a decision. That is why I propose to delete the two paragraphs which state that the Minister would be able to agree to the proposal or to modify the proposal, and leave it for the Government, which always acts in its collective spirit, to decide.
I cannot accept this amendment. As Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, I, or whoever is the incumbent of this office in future, have responsibility for policy in relation to physical heritage. Under subsection (4) I will have the power to designate buildings as heritage buildings on the advice of the council. There is broad support for this in the Seanad. It is, therefore, reasonable that any appeals by public authorities in relation to decisions by the council on proposals by such authorities about heritage buildings should be considered by me. In this regard I will be able to call on the advice of my technical staff.
It would be inappropriate for all such appeals — and it will be all appeals if I accept this amendment — to go to Government in the first instance. I am not aware of any precedents in law for such behaviour. I put in a check so as to have a balance. Under section 10 (3) (c) I have provided for cases to go to Government in exceptional circumstances where the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, having designated a heritage building and wishing to protect it, finds himself in contention with the public authority responsible to another Minister, who can then refer the matter to the Government. If I, as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, am running the Department and I set up a mechanism for identifying heritage buildings at risk, and if I accept the council's advice, which is autonomous, and it finds itself in contention with the local authority, then it is only reasonable that the responsible Minister should deal with appeals. If the building is the responsibility of another Minister, then that Minister can go to Government in those exceptional circumstances. I have provided for this in the case of a contentious circumstance. That is different from assuming that in all cases they should bypass the Minister who is responsible and automatically be considered by the Government. I could not concede to that request.
The exceptional circumstances worry me. We discussed a hypothetical case of a courthouse in a provincial town, which was in an urban renewal area and which someone wanted to renovate, demolish or remove. I foresee difficulties when one person can make such decisions and there is the opportunity to exert significant political influence. I am worried about this. I would prefer an independent body or even the council to make the decision. However, if the council is selected, as this legislation suggests, by the Minister, then it is effectively the same thing. I have serious reservations about vesting such power in one individual. By doing so, I foresee circumstances where something which should not happen, could and would be allowed to happen.
I support the Minister. Surely the Minister of the day must implement the policy and be informed by the council about all aspects regarding any building. If there is an exceptional case, surely the Minister of the day should not be undermined by having to bring the matter to Government for a broad discussion. It must be the responsibility of the Minister. I would not consider any further discussion on it.
I support the Minister. I thought it was the normal practice in all Departments for the Minister to make the decisions. I do not see any reason to change that.
The case has been made. The argument boils down to whether one assumes that the totality is inherently contentious and should automatically go to Government or one wants the normal to be dealt with by the Minister responsible, not only under this legislation but under other legislation. There is a referee system in Government if a local authority differs from the Minister or if another Minister is responsible for a building. I have dealt with this issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 8, lines 4 and 5, to delete "assistance to any person or group" and substitute "assistance and advice to any person or body, including a public authority,".
The existing section 11 states that the council may co-operate with and provide assistance, including financial assistance, to persons or groups on matters relating to its functions. The purpose of this amendment is two-fold. It provides that, in addition to co-operation and providing assistance, the council may also provide advice. This would give the council specific power to advise planning authorities in relation to planning applications where heritage is affected. This amendment also provides that such co-operation, assistance and advice may be provided to any person or body, including a public authority. This will be a continuation of the current practice of the existing non-statutory Heritage Council. It also addresses a point made by Senator Ormonde on Second Stage that it should be clearly stated that the council may provide assistance to local authorities. "Public authority" is defined in section 2 of the Bill and it means the State, a State agency or a local authority.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 13, subsection (2), line 42, after "Oireachtas" to add "and to be published by the Council".
Certain things have to happen to the accounts of the council. When they have gone through the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and so on, they have to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and that is to be welcomed. However, I suggest to the Minister that if section 21 is to be consistent with section 22, the accounts should be published. It is not clear to me from reading the Bill that the report of the council is the same as its accounts. If it is the case that they are the same and contain the accounts of the council, then obviously what I am arguing for is already covered under the scope of section 22.
It appears to me that they are two independent or separate matters and there is only an obligation on the Minister to lay the accounts before the Houses of the Oireachtas and on the council to publish its report which, from my reading of the Bill, need not necessarily contain the accounts. The accounts should be published.
I am not accepting the amendment. The reason for this — I know the point Senator Dardis is making — is that I consider that the amendment is unnecessary as the annual accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on them will normally be included, if available, in the annual report of the council for that year to be published in accordance with section 22.
I take the point that section 22 deals with the publication of the annual report. The annual reports should be published in a timely fashion and if they are unduly delayed, they become dated and lose interest. Sometimes because of factors outside the control of bodies such as the Heritage Council, there are long delays in the auditing of their accounts. I would not wish the annual reports to be delayed while the audited accounts are awaited. The accounts should be included in the annual reports if the auditing is done in time, otherwise the report will be published without the accounts. The council will be free to publish the accounts separately but it would be unduly onerous to require it to do so. The provision requiring the council to present the audited accounts to the Minister, who must lay them before each House, is sufficient safeguard of the public interest.
I recognise the point Senator Dardis is making, but it is better to assure the annual publication of the report and not delay it if anything goes wrong with the accounts. If the report is published and the audited accounts are not included, it is open to any Member to raise the question as to why they are being delayed. If one does it the other way, one will put the annual report at the mercy of any obstacle that might be there to the auditing of the accounts. I felt on balance that this was giving more accountability so that in the normal way, one would have the report inclusive of the audited accounts. If for any reason the accounts were not audited, the annual report would still go ahead and it would then be open to any Member in either or both Houses to ask the reasons for the non-inclusion of the audited accounts, which would then be published. If one does it the other way around, one will then be saying that one would make it more onerous on people. This is the most flexible way to do it. I am giving accountability without at the same time putting in a demand on the council which would be impractical in application.
I share the Minister's desire to have the report published quickly, but it is extremely unsatisfactory to have a report that does not contain accounts. The shareholders of Guinness PLC, for example, would not be happy if they got an annual report which did not have the accounts. They are central to the activities of the council. Whatever delays there are in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be speeded up. The fact that it will be slow, thereby holding up the report, is not a satisfactory excuse. I have established the point that the report, as defined in the Bill, need not necessarily contain the accounts and that is what worries me.
I notice that the annual reports and accounts of Teagasc for 1992-93 have been laid before the House on today's Order Paper. That cannot be regarded as satisfactory either, but in the spirit of transparency, the accounts should be published. Even if the accounts are not with the report, that does not mean that they should not be published when the accounts become available and only then be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Of course they should be published. The public are entitled to know what happens in these type of bodies.
I am not in disagreement with the principle of transparency or accountability. I have an active approach towards this matter. I have said that it would be normal to expect that the annual report would include the accounts. If one published the annual report a couple of times without including the accounts, it would be open, as I have already said, to any Senator or Deputy to ask why we are getting the report without an auditing of the accounts. In that sense one is drawing the focus and attention of both Houses on this matter. If I do it the other way, and I am not suggesting that semi-State and other bodies will not change, one could have a situation where because the accounts are not audited — circumstances could arise that are not really within the control of the body involved — and the report will be delayed as well.
I have no difficulty about ensuring that all information, including the accounts, be available to scrutiny. I have said, and it is on the record of this House, that it is my interpretation that the reports would normally include the audited accounts and I repeat that. Therefore, it will be exceptional if it did not do that. My approach is more flexible in practice. It is a speedier reporting. Senator Dardis mentioned, for example, the parallel with the private corporate world. I am not so sure the idea of shareholders getting a report with good accounts every year is that general.
In a curious way the Minister is arguing my case for me. Let us take the case where the accounts do not appear for two years and a Deputy or Senator raises the matter as to why they have not. The Minister of the day can tell them to look at section 21 of the Bill. There is no obligation on them at all to publish the accounts; there is only an obligation on them to lay them before the Houses of the Oireachtas. But I believe there is an obligation on them to publish the accounts so that when a Deputy or Senator raises a question about the delay, the Minister can say "Yes, under the terms of the Bill, we are compelled to publish them and to make them available separately from the report".
To conclude this matter — we could get into semantics here — it is entirely reasonable that there is an obligation to present the accounts to the Oireachtas. If this is done, I cannot see for the life of me why use cannot be made of them? We are here as legislators to respond to them being made available to the Oireachtas. If there was something highly improper, any active Senator or Deputy could quickly ensure they went into the realm of public discussion.
Do not wait too long, Chairman.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 21 agreed to.
Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 21a:
In page 14, paragraph 2, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subparagraph:
"(3) The composition of the Council shall reflect a representative range of the functions of the Council as defined in section (6) (1).
While I compliment the Minister on the composition of the council — I especially welcome factors like the council having a gender balance and so forth — there does not seem to me to be any emphasis on the fact that the members of the council should be representative of all of its functions. I am sure that when the Minister is appointing the first council he will be extremely careful to make sure that all its functions, which are outlined in section 6 of the Bill, are represented. But suppose one had a Minister with a particular interest in just one area — let us say botany — we could have a lop-sided council. You would not necessarily have some of the important functions of the council represented by people with a good knowledge of them. That was the reason I moved this amendment.
I note the point Senator Henry is making. As you know, I have catered for gender equity in relation to the composition of the council. When I have to appoint councils, for example the Arts Council, different bodies usually write to me — and they are welcome to do so — making suggestions as to who might represent their interests in a particular area, but the members who end up being appointed are asked not to represent one interest but the totality of the functions as expressed in the legislation. For example, someone with a background of dance appointed to the Arts Council is required and asked to address the issues in the mandate of the Arts Council in its most general sense.
I understand the point the Senator has made but you could get into difficulties because the wording, as suggested, could be imprecise and a little dangerous. Using the term "a representative range of the functions of the council", one could easily end up having an argument as to which nominated and appointed member represented which function. Or, if a vacancy occurred whose precise function was now not represented, you would have to some extent sacrificed the principle of generality for one of representation. I have said openly that I am not allowing people to regard themselves just as constituencies for appointment to the different bodies. I want them to suggest names as being appropriate but representing the general purpose of the legislation which is in place when they get there.
I prefer the wording of paragraph 2 (2) of the Schedule. I am not suggesting that it is perfect but I think it is better. It refers to the members of the council having "knowledge or experience of or in relation to the national heritage". It is a better formulation than that suggested in amendment No. 21a which, reluctantly, I cannot accept.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 22 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 15, lines 16 to 18, to delete paragraph 9 (2) and substitute——
"(2) The Council shall establish standing committees on——
(a) wildlife, and
(b) archaeology,
and the Minister may appoint three persons who are not members of the Council to each standing committee.".
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 23 has already been discussed with amendment No. 8. I ask Senator Dardis to formally move the amendment. I understand that there is agreement by the Minister on the amendment.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 3, lines 5 and 6, to delete "KNOWLEDGE AND APPRECIATION" and substitute "KNOWLEDGE, APPRECIATION AND PROTECTION".
I accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages now.