asked the Minister for Finance the action he proposes to take to ensure that archaeological sites are not damaged by treasure trove seekers as a consequence of a recent court judgment.

The National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986, currently before the Seanad deals with this problem among others. Treasure trove can be defined broadly as any gold or silver, whether coin, plate or bullion, found in the ground or in any other secret place in circumstances which indicate that somebody hid it with the intention of recovering it. Treasure trove is explicitly excluded from the definition of an archaeological object in the National Monuments Act because it is deemed to be the property of the State. However, the decision of the High Court in the Derrynaflan case was to the effect that treasure trove law does not apply in Ireland. If this is upheld by the Supreme Court, all archaeological objects, including those which up to now were classed as treasure trove will come within the provisions of the National Monuments Acts in future. These provisions make it an offence to dig for archaeological objects without a licence from the Commissioners of Public Works.

One problem is that while a person might be observed using a metal detector at a site of archaeological or historical interest, it is difficult to catch anybody in the act of digging up such objects. The National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986, will make it an offence to be in possession of a metal detector at a protected site of historic or archaeological interest. The National Monuments Acts also provide that archaeological objects must be reported to the Garda Síochána or the Director of the National Museum. Failure to do so is an offence. It is also an offence to damage any such object or to export it without a licence. The amending Bill will increase the fines for such offences.

Is the Minister concerned that the decision of the High Court could cause a rush of people with metal detectors to such sites? Would the Minister not agree that some measure should be introduced whereby local bodies would have responsibility to protect such areas and sites?

We are including measures in the Bill before the Seanad, shortly to come before the Dáil, to ensure that the State can be helped in its role of protecting our national monuments. There is no way the State could provide the personnel to caretake specifically all our historical or archaeological sites. There will be specific provisions to include interested local groups such as local historical societies and others to help us in this most important role. I did not get the first part of the Deputy's question. Perhaps he could repeat it.

I said we should be concerned that, following that judgment, we would have a rush of people with metal detectors possibly causing serious damage to those sites. I have in mind my own constituency in particular where there are crannogs and hill forts and serious irreparable damage could be done to them. I believe voluntary organisations and the local authorities should be used to protect them.

I could not agree more.

Did the Minister say there is a Bill before the Dáil? If so, is there an element of compensation——

I said before the Seanad.

Is compensation written into this Bill?

It will be coming here and we cannot anticipate the debate.

I am not anticipating it. I am just asking——

That is the same thing.

Does the Minister agree that the principle of compensation for treasure trove is wrong and that the State should automatically take it into its custody, without compensation to any individual finder?

I personally do not agree with that, although no final decision has been made pending the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court in the Derrynaflan case.

Is this in the Supreme Court?

Yes.

Deputy Andrews will agree we had better leave it alone.

I am saying that this matter should not be before the Supreme Court for compensation. If treasure trove is found in this country it is a matter of heritage and should be automatically handed over to the custody of the people of Ireland without compensation.

The Deputy seems to be questioning the decision of the High Court.

I certainly am questioning the decision of the High Court and I an entitled to do so as of right.

There is a constitutional way, as the Deputy knows well.

I hope that when they come to a decision they will coincide with my views.

All the Chair can say is that he is somewhat amazed at the Deputy's attitude, having regard to the Constitution.

I am just being traditionally republican, which the Chair may know nothing about. I believe the people of Ireland own the land of Ireland and all it contains.