I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, on his appointment and for his kind remarks about me. I hope that his stay at the Office of Public Works will be as enjoyable and interesting as my short one was. I say, with slight tongue in cheek, that perhaps his will be longer but I am quite sure that it will be interesting, irrespective of the length.
I am reasonably familiar with the Bill having had the privilege of steering it through the Seanad during the last session. I, like the Minister should like to record my thanks to all the Senators who had such a constructive commitment to the Bill and many of whose amendments I was able to take on board. If you cast your eye over the Seanad records of the time, you will see that it was agreed by all that it was most useful legislation. Any area in which we experienced difficulty we managed to tease out and resolve to the satisfaction of all parties and interests involved.
I, like the Minister, hope that the passage of the Bill through this House will be just as speedy and efficient and I hope we will reach a conclusion with a Bill which will do the job it was intended to do, as we have all been waiting a long time for it.
Everyone in the House is aware of the importance of our architectural and archaeological heritage and of the need for identifying, protecting and preserving it. To protect and preserve our heritage, we must first identify it. There are several aspects about identification which I should like to mention. There is a clear need for a new and consistent system of classification of buildings or structures and this should be done by a central agency. The job could perhaps be undertaken by the Department of the Environment, possibly through the agency of An Foras Forbartha, or with a new unit within the Department. The alternative would be to have it done by the Office of Public Works and this is the course I would support.
The Office of Public Works already have an established survey unit dealing with national monuments. They have developed effective policies and methodologies using the latest computerised equipment and systems and have established an enviable publication record in recent years. While the survey unit has by tradition concentrated in the main on identifying and recording our archaeological heritage up to the year 1700, the scope of their work could be broadened and extended to cover the architectural heritage which is largely concentrated in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
A small start has already been made with the commencement late last year of a pilot survey of vernacular buildings in County Dublin. The Office of Public Works already have responsibility for assessing buildings of significant interest under section 19 of the Finance Act, 1982, which allows a tax exemption in respect of all expenditure on the maintenance of such buildings. These buildings are also exempt from residential property tax. The very fact that the Office of Public Works have this role is an important part of identification of such buildings.
Operating through the Office of Public Works would also facilitate the involvement of the National Monuments Advisory Council — hopefully, shortly to become the Historic Monuments Council with the passing of this legislation — in advising on criteria for the classification of historic buildings and so they would avoid the necessity to establish a separate Historic Buildings Council as has been suggested by some commentators. The new council, the NMAC, who were re-established last year include many eminent members in the relevant fields. I hope this council will be invited to advise the commissioners on setting suitable criteria for a classification or grading system for historic buildings as a working basis for the Office of Public Works survey unit is carrying out surveys and recording the results.
The survey work could be undertaken partly by the OPW's own in-house staff and partly by contracting the work out as they do at present with the archaeological surveys throughout the country. I would like to see the Architectural Archive play an important role in any such contract work. Perhaps, the Minister could explore with the commissioners the feasibility of redeploying some of their architectural staff from other areas, and if the Minister checks his numbers he will see he has a large architectural staff, to undertake the in-house work and set standards for and monitor the work of the outside contractors.
I would like the Minister's approval to adopting the foregoing course in relation to identifying our heritage so that steps can be taken to implement policy as quickly as possible in this area. Basically, until we identify our heritage, both archaeological and architectural, there is little we can do to protect or preserve it if we do not know what or where it is. The second major task is that once identified we must see what our policies are in relation to the protection of our heritage.
I would like to quote from the document "Manifesto for the City", published in January 1987, of the Dublin Crisis Conference. I am sure the Minister is familiar with this document. On page 8 it states:
In European Architectural Heritage Year (1975), the Government signed the Declaration of Amsterdam guaranteeing full support for the preservation of Ireland's archictectural heritage as part of the common heritage of Europe. Ten years later, Dr. Maurice Craig, the distinguished architectural historian — who is a very eminent member of the NMAC — could say that our legislation and funding provision in this area "is so farcically inadequate as to be virtually non-existent. In this respect, we are at the bottom of the European league". Indeed, according to An Taisce estimates, of the mainly Georgian buildings listed for preservation in the 1980 City Development Plan, at least 50 have been subjected to material alteration over the past five or six years. And of those scheduled for protection, up to 80 have already been demolished or planning permission has been granted for demolition.
One major problem is that there is, in fact, no statutory basis under the Planning Acts for the listing of buildings; indeed, the procedure is entirely ad hoc because it is not mentioned anywhere in the legislation. The 1963 Planning Act is remarkably silent on architectural conservation. It lays down no nationally-consistent system for listing buildings, nor is it mandatory on the planning authorities to draw up any lists and there is also no provision for the designation of conservation areas, where special controls might apply. Thus, the first priority must be to give listed buildings and conservation areas proper status in law.
I fully endorse those sentiments as I feel the Minister also does. Basically, what that document says is that under our Planning Acts there are many and multiple provisions whereby local authorities may, that is the word used in the development plans and Planning Acts generally, do this, that or the other. Bluntly we are asking the Minister to remove the word "may" or more correctly to get his colleague in the Department of the Environment to remove the word "may" where it appears in this legislation and replace it by the word "must". If we make it mandatory on local authorities to list according to certain classifications, we must identify for them what those classification and grading systems are. That would be the job of the OPW.
I recommend that we use the National Monuments Acts and the Planning Acts in a complementary strategy to achieve our objectives. I suggest that historic buildings be classified by the commissioners in two or more grades according to their importance and that the highest grade could be listed by the commissioners under the present national monuments legislation and later registered in the Register of Historic Monuments under this legislation before us today. Anyone wishing to interfere with, to alter or demolish a listed or registered monument would be required to give at least two months notice to the commissioners who would then be in a position to give further protection to the monument if they saw fit by way of a preservation order, guardianship order, or by compulsory acquisition or, alternatively, to grant permission subject to such conditions as they thought proper for the alteration or even demolition of the building in certain circumstances. Where a monument is protected by a preservation order, the commissioners are obliged to consult the National Monument Advisory Council before giving consent to its demolition or removal so that there would be further scope for the council's overseeing role in such circumstances.
The other grades of buildings could be left to the Department of the Environment and local authorities to deal with. The Department of the Environment might deem it prudent to retain some controlling function over the second highest grade, leaving it to the local authorities to decide about a third grade in the light of local circumstances and local planning needs. In any event, planning authorities are required to consult with the National Monuments Advisory Council as a prescribed body in relation to planning applications, so there would be an additional safeguard in this context if this requirement were more strictly enforced in relation to all buildings or sites.
This would still leave unresolved the unsatisfactory provisions for listing historic buildings under the Planning Acts. This, again, is a matter to which many environmental commentators have alluded. I see no alternative to amending the Planning Acts in an appropriate manner, perhaps making it mandatory on planning authorities to list all buildings recommended by the Commissioners of Public Works, on a continuous basis as OPW lists would become available, and not just in the context of their development plan which has clearly proved to be an unsatisfactory method of meeting the position. This area will require more detailed examination and further consideration way beyond the scope of the present Bill.
The Dublin Crisis Conference referred to the necessity for conservation areas and that they should have a proper status in law. To some extent in section 11 this Bill deals with this. I will refer to it later. Indeed, the Minister already alluded to it in relation to the amendment to the definition of a monument. I must say I am particularly proud of the Government amendment during the passage of this Bill through the Seanad which was responsible for amending the definition of a monument, basically from the singular to the plural to put it in its simplest terms. This could have far-reaching effects and could be an extremely useful tool when some of our heritage is threatened. I will come back to that shortly.
Basically, there are four categories under which we can protect our archaeological and architectural heritage. The first is listing. This is the lowest and most common level of protection at present. Monuments on the order of the Commissioners of Public Works are listed in Iris Oifigiúil. Owners must give the commissioners two months notice of any proposed works affecting a monument. Within this period the commissioners must decide if the proposed work may proceed and subject to what, if any, conditions. If a satisfactory solution is not reached the commissioners may resort to further levels of protection available. At present, there are 1,653 monuments listed in the country.
The second level of protection is a preservation order. Here, the Commissioners of Public Works may make an order in respect of any monument of national importance which is threatened with injury or destruction, or which is falling into decay through neglect. They may make a permanent order or in the case of a sudden threat where the object is to halt work pending investigation, they may make a temporary preservation order valid for six months. Both types of order may be revoked at any time. In fact, this does not happen in practice. There are about 400 national monuments currently protected by preservation orders.
The third level of protection is guardianship. Owners may place monuments in the guardianship of the Commissioners of Public Works or of a local authority. They retain their ownership but the commissioners or the local authority become responsible for the maintenance of the monument and the admission of the public. However, in handing over guardianship an owner may, if the public authority concerned agree, retain some control over the admission of the public. Where a preservation order is in force the commissioners may, by order, appoint themselves guardian of the monument and, indeed, undertake its maintenance, although with dwindling resources over recent years that becomes less of an option as time goes by. There are over 250 monuments in the guardianship of the Commissioners of Public Works at the moment.
The fourth and most effective method of protection is that of public ownership of our heritage. Local authorities may own national monuments, in which case they are required to maintain them and open them to the public. The Commissioners of Public Works may acquire, by agreement or compulsorily, any national monument, including the means of access to it. There are almost 500 monuments in the ownership of the Commissioners of Public Works.
With regard to listed monuments, many of these are on lands which have changed hands since listing was first introduced. There has been a tendency for new owners or those inheriting the lands on which these monuments stand to injure or remove them in the course of land clearance operations. It has become necessary to deal with this problem all the more because it is through the listing process that the monuments identified by the archaeological survey are, in fact, to be protected. The Register of Historic Monuments should become the central record of all protected monuments. Additionally, there may be entered in this register areas which are designated as archaeological areas and which will enjoy the same level of protection as listed monuments under the Bill before us today. Every entry in the register will be registered in due course as a burden on registered land. This will mean that in all transactions affecting land, inheritance or sales, the existence of a protected monument will come to the notice of the new owners who then will not be able to claim ignorance of their existence.
Preservation orders, both temporary and permanent, have generally worked well. It is noted that no compensation is payable on the making of a preservation order. This has been challenged up to Supreme Court level, but the courts have held that a preservation order is in accordance with the Constitution of Ireland which provides that the existence of property rights may be limited by law to the extent required by the common good, a most important ruling.
Guardianship has worked well in the past. Nowadays, however, the proper presentation of monuments to the public generally requires extensive work and facilities and the public authorities are less willing to put their money into a monument which still remains in private hands. Compulsory purchase remains an option, of course, and was used in the case of the Hill of Tara. However, it is seldom resorted to. The existence of the power of compulsory purchase is often sufficient to resolve any acquisition difficulties. The acquisition by public ownership of national monuments to the extent that budgetary conditions alone remains the most satisfactory solution in the case of monuments of outstanding national and, indeed, international importance. Even during the present recession we have pursued this objective. Negotiations have recently been completed for the purchase of Rathfarnham Castle on the outskirts of Dublin and of the core area in the megalithic cemetery of Cairnmore in County Sligo. Indeed, the purchase of both of those most important monuments was one of the highlights of my year in the Minister's position of the Office of Public Works.
There are two major deficiencies in our present legislation, inability to deal with damage being done to our archaeological sites by users of metal detectors and the lack of specific provisions for underwater archaeology. The legislation before us today on Second Stage will deal with these problems. Under the Bill, it will be an offence to be in possession of a metal detector at the site of a registered monument without having a licence. It will also be an offence to be in possession of one anywhere else without a licence where the purpose of having it there is to search for archaeological objects. The first case is clear; the second may not appear to be so clear. The Bill, however, allows the legal presumption, in the case of the prosecution of an offence involving use of a metal detector, that the device was being used for the purpose of searching for archaeological objects. This, together with the very stiff fines, will greatly strengthen our hands generally in dealing with this problem.
The Bill generally is a very fine response to the problems which have been hitting the headlines recently. Let me mention just some of these; the finding of the Derrynaflan Chalice by means of a metal detector; the discovery of the Armada wrecks off Stredagh, County Sligo; the illicit removal of valuable stone carvings from Clonmacnoise, Carrowntemple and other sites; the damaging of Bronze Age burials at Kilgowan, County Kildare in the course of gravel extraction; the discovery of Lord Cloncurry's treasure ship, The Aide, off the Wicklow coast; the finding of the eighth century reliquary in the lake near Granard in County Longford and again very recently, the disturbance by a contractor working for the Department of Forestry near Tallaght of a stone circle around a burial cairn. The list could go on, but I mention just a few.
When we realise that it is over 50 years since the principal Act came into force and more than 30 years since an amending Act was passed, it is fair to question whether the legislation is now grossly out of date or whether it was so good that it stood the test of time. The answer perhaps is somewhere between the two. I hope that this legislation will be as effective for as many years to come. On two previous occasions Bills of similar content were introduced into Dáil Éireann, the first by Deputy John Bruton in 1978 and then another by Deputy Donnellan in 1980. Regrettably, as the Minister has alluded to himself, both attempts were resisted on the grounds that comprehensive legislation was in preparation. It would have been better to have allowed the proposals to go through. That would have spared the nation some of the heartaches of the past eight years. In any case the comprehensive legislation proved illusory, as important issues concerning the constitutional rights to private property and other matters were coming up before the courts. Some were resolved; others remain to be resolved. I mentioned that the Supreme Court has recently ruled that preservation orders are in accordance with our Constitution and that they provide the limiting of private rights by law to the extent required by the common good. It is not possible today and will not be for quite some time to have a definitive answer which will allow comprehensive legislation to be drafted.
The Bill we are now discussing does two major things; it updates existing legislation and breaks new ground. One important area dealt with under section 17 requires updating in the level of fines which can be imposed. Under the present Acts the maximum fine that can be imposed is £50. Such an amount is derisory by present day money values. There is, of course, an imprisonment of up to six months which might accompany or substitute for the fine. The fine still has a deterrent effect. Under the new Bill the level of fines will go up to £5,000 for the more serious offences. The level of fines and penalties is, in the end, a test of our seriousness. We do not wish to err by excess in this area, but we must show that we mean business when it comes to preserving our heritage.
I referred in the Seanad to an incident which I will now recall here because it bluntly demonstrates what I mean when I say that the fines must be evidence of our seriousness. Some months ago a farmer phoned asking what fine he might receive if he destroyed a monument on his land. He was asking, he explained, because if the amount was right he would go ahead and bulldoze, anyway. The reply that by law the maximum fine was only £50 could hardly have had the deterrent effect one would have wished for. From now on, once this Bill is passed, if an archaeological object is found and the finder fails to report it or falsely reports it he or she may be fined £5,000 instead of £10. If he or she excavates in search of archaeological objects without a licence the fine will be £5,000 instead of £25 as heretofore.
In many other ways this Bill places new challenges before us. Heritage preservation has been progressing in a more united fashion. The European countries have been co-ordinating their efforts through the Council of Europe. I have already mentioned that 1975 was European Architectural Heritage Year. This called attention to Europe's rich and varied architecture and the unique character of her historic towns which are so fast disappearing through neglect, demolition and intemperate redevelopment. This year sought to sound the alarm and produce action before it was too late. I hope the success of European Architectural Heritage Year is not to be measured by our progress in this country, although it did generate much interest in Ireland too. Progress has been lamentable. The year culminated in the Congress on the European Architectural Heritage year held in Amsterdam in October 1975. This signalled the formal adoption of policies of integrated conservation. The preservation of heritage was to be built into the planning process. How often have we heard it? Twelve years later we are still talking about it. Local authorities were to be more intimately involved. There should be citizen participation also. We took a lively interest in these proceedings and participated in the subsequent drafting of the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe. Again we were good in theory but slow in practical application. This convention was signed by the former Minister of State, Mr. Joe Bermingham, at Granada in October 1985. This Bill will pave the way for bringing it before both Houses of the Oireachtas for ratification.
The reconstitution of the National Monuments Advisory Council on a wider academic basis and under the new title of the Historic Monuments Council is designed to be a major factor in the implementation of integrated conservation policies. It is a body which will have to be consulted in regard to all proposals which affect heritage properties. Integrated conservation will be carried a step further by the declaration under this Bill that all pre-1700 A.D. buildings or sites rank as historic monuments and, ergo, qualify for protection.
This, of course, will not mean that this legislation before us is not also concerned with post-1700 structures. We should be quite clear about this fact as there has been some confusion and concern in many quarters. There is nothing in the Bill which precludes the OPW from taking protective action in regard to any post-1700 building. Indeed, the Minister may, by regulation, advance the date from 1700 whenever he or she may think fit. The Commissioners already have in their care a small number of post-1700 buildings or national monuments and I need hardly mention that the Commissioners also look after a number of post-1700 buildings which are of archaeological or historic importance and which are in use for State purposes.
The introduction of the new concept of an archaeological area is very important. This would cover in a rural area an extensive site such as an ancient field system. In an urban area it would cover any topographically definable area of archaeological importance and, in particular, areas of original or mediaeval settlement.
The Bill before us establishes a register of historic monuments. Entry into this register of a monument or an archaeological area will mean that an owner proposing to do some work to the monument or in its immediate area must give at least two months notice to the Commissioners of Public Works. This will give time for decision on whether the heritage interest in the site should be recorded by an archaeological excavation, if this has not already been done, and the site then either given legal protection, or whether the owner should be allowed to carry on with his work.
Monuments in areas entered into the register will also be registered in the Land Registry as burdens affecting the land. This should mean that anyone buying land would know if it has a protective site or monument thereon. This is a serious attempt to avoid the heartbreak and the problems which can occur where someone buys land for development and finds that his or her plans are halted because a monument or archaeological area of which he or she was not aware is found to exist thereon. It will not be possible to provide for every situation that may arise. No matter how good the survey, something unsuspected may still turn up. Ploughing or land clearance could reveal souterrains used for storage in olden times and as places of refuge in days gone by. Studies of urban buildings may discover features indicating a history going back further than anybody suspected.
I welcome under section 2 the reasonable control of metal detectors. We should all be aware of the damage that is being done to archaeological sites by treasure hunters. Reports have been received from almost every part of the country of sites that have been scarred by their operations. Coins and other objects providing valuable dating evidence have been removed from their context. This represents irretrievable loss and it is generally agreed that something must be done about it. When the Bill was originally published there was an outcry from groups representing the users of metal detectors. It was said that under the Bill no one could use a metal detector, even in their own back garden, without committing an offence. Some archaeologists have said that we are not going far enough and that metal detectors should be banned.
I find the provisions of the Bill adequate and justifiable. Up to now it would have been necessary to catch an offender redhanded in the act of extracting archaeological objects from the ground to be assured of achieving a successful prosecution. Now anybody found to have a metal detector at a protected monument or site will be liable to conviction unless he or she can prove his innocence. At the same time, persons using metal detectors for legitimate purposes such as mineral prospecting and tracing pipes and cables have no need to fear that they will be inconvenienced in any way. However, treasure hunters using metal detectors may no longer bring them on to protected sites on land or under water without a licence; nor may they use them at archaeological sites, even if they are not yet afforded protection under the National Monuments Act. If a person armed with a metal detector is found using it at a known archaeological site it will be presumed under this new law that the device was being used to search for archaeological objects and he or she will be guilty of an offence.
Treasure hunting with metal detectors is not, however, being made totally illegal, provided treasure hunters keep away from known archaeological areas and sites and that they are not specifically searching for archaeological objects. The great problem has been that in the past decade or so one archaeological site after another has been ransacked by the users of metal detectors. Holes have been dug all over certain sites, such as the Hill of Tara, and we have experienced appalling vandalism. Groups representing metal detector users insist that their members observe a very strict code and that a few people have been giving them a very bad name. This is probably true. While it is not the intention of the Bill, however, to outlaw all use of metal detectors as a hobby, treasure hunting, almost invariably involves a breach of common law. There is trespass on private property, interference with such property and, possibly theft of property.
The next major development which the Bill deals with, and which I applaud, is that of underwater archaeology. The growth in the number of amateur diving clubs has inevitably forced the pace in this area, particularly because of the number of historic wrecks that are being discovered. This has underlined a particular problem. On the other hand we have the increasing capacity of sports divers, and others, to discover historic remains preserved underwater whether in lakes, rivers or in the sea. On the other hand we have not enough archaeologists and conservation facilities to deal with this heritage area. I should like to salute the work of the Maritime Institute of Ireland, and of the CFT, the underwater diving council, and the diving clubs in co-operating in the preserving and recording of wrecks and artefacts in situ.
The question of the increased capacity to locate objects of historical interest underwater and the limited academic and conservation resources to deal with the discovered material has attracted the attention of the Council of Europe. The provisions of section 3 are in line generally with the relevant provisions of the draft Convention which has resulted. One of the significant features of the draft European Convention is that it avoids interference with the rights of identifiable owners, the law of salvage and other rules of maritime law as these were considered to be too useful to be set aside. It was felt that that would leave a vacuum filled with new law which would in turn have to be tested in the courts.
Section 3 introduces sufficient controls to ensure that satisfactory recovery and conservation procedures are followed. It is to be assumed that the Commissioners of Public Works would never issue a licence to conduct salvage operations at the site of an historic wreck unless they were satisfied that the operation would be subject to adequate archaeological supervision. However, once such an operation has been authorised, the existing machinery of salvage law and the role of the receiver of wrecks under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, would come into operation so that salvage claims and claims to ownership rights could be dealt with.
Discoveries of historic wrecks have provided the motive to bring us to this point in our legislation, from an archaeological point of view, wrecks are but one aspect of the very wide field of underwater archaeology. Crannogs and other early habitation sites have been preserved intact over many centuries by reason of being underwater. The section has been so drafted to allow the protection of such sites.
The Bill provides for the setting up of the Historic Monuments Council which will have a broader academic base than the National Monuments Advisory Council which it replaces. It is hoped that as a result greater attention will be given to the recommendations of the council. As successor to the NMAC it will be a prescribed authority under the planning regulations for the purposes of referral of planning applications which might affect sites of archaeological or historical interest or buildings of artistic, architectural or historical interest. It is because of the heavy academic representation on the new council that there is less room to accommodate representatives of local archaeological societies. I recall the passage of that section in the Seanad when Senators called on me to give representation to 15 or 17 other bodies on that council. Every call had merit. At the time we amended the section to include a nominee of the Minister for the Environment but that was the only representative we felt we could take on board. Many interested groups and organisations would love to be part of the HMAC. In my view the balance in the Bill is about right but that does not mean that at some stage in the future, having learned from experience, we should not decide to alter the provision. However, given our experience to date it is my view that with the eminent people we have on the HMAC they will do the job we will be demanding of them very effectively. There is a point at which a committee becomes ineffective by virtue of its membership. It could become too cumbersome if a big number was involved. The number chosen in the Bill is about right.
Those who did not manage to gain representation on the committee, particularly representatives of local archaeological societies, could, perhaps, find their real place on the Historic Monuments Advisory Committees which local authorities are authorised to establish under section 22 of the Principal Act, as amended by section 14. Very few of the local authorities who have authority to establish such committees have done so. Of those that have been set up the vast majority have not met for more than two years. Those of us who are members of local authorities should re-invigorate those committees or urge county managers and chairmen of county councils to set them up. They would play a very useful role in co-ordinating and feeding through information to the HMC.
There is little point in claiming representation on a national body when little effort is made to sort the problem out locally. A difficulty with the old council was that the term of office of all the members lapsed together so that there was a gap between the lapsing of one council and the appointment of the next. On the last occasion that gap was five years. That problem has now been overcome under an arrangement whereby half of the members' term of office will lapse after three years and half will continue for six years. At no time in the future will the terms of office of all members lapse together.
I welcome the broadening of the definition of a monument from the singular to the plural in section 11 to include groups of buildings. The Minister referred to that amendment this afternoon and described the original definition of a monument as long and cumbersome. He said it had served the test of time fairly well and that the only substantial amendment now considered necessary was to expand it to include groups of buildings or structures. I agree with those sentiments. I hope the usefulness of the amendment will become apparent particularly in regard to our urban heritage and where our streetscapes are threatened.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable appropriate protection to be given to groups of buildings. The Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, which was signed by a former Minister, defines the architectural heritage as comprising monuments, groups of buildings and sites. Monuments and sites, that is archaeological sites, are already covered in the Bill and it is only proper that we should also make provision for groups of buildings. The effect of the amendment agreed in the Seanad is that groups of buildings may now be listed under the National Monuments Acts and, if the circumstances warrant, be protected by a preservation order or taken into guardianship by the commissioners or by a local authority.
A preservation order may be made when the commissioners are satisfied that a monument is such that its preservation is a matter of national importance and that it is in danger of being or is actually being destroyed, injured or removed or is falling into decay through neglect. The making of a guardianship order is a further step which the commissioners may take if necessary. I am particularly interested in preserving groups of buildings and streetscapes in our cities and towns. Ones that come to mind immediately are Dublin's Georgian streets and squares and any area of special urban design quality such as Mountjoy Square, Henrietta Street or North Great George's Street. The Bill will add to the armoury of legislation which may be availed of to protect such streetscapes. The provision may also be used for the protection of groups of rural buildings which are of historic or architectural interest. We may interpret this amendment under section 11 to be the concept of conservation areas as part of our legislation at last. I hope we can develop this with the OPW hand in hand with the Department of the Environment and using the Planning Acts to ensure that the threat which now exists to our historic buildings will be removed as speedily as possible. We have taken the first and, in my view, the most important step forward in this area.
In conclusion, it is, as I have said, over ten years since European Architectural Heritage Year. I hope the success of that year is not to be measured by our progress in this country to date. This Bill is in its own way a small but important step in the right direction. It has been said that we have an obsession with the past but that we have not matched this with any commitment to it. We are now into European Year of the Environment. Next year we celebrate Dublin's millennium. The enacting of this Bill together with the Air Pollution Bill and, it is to be hoped, the ratification by both Houses of the Oireachtas of the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe are the best way we can show our commitment to our rich heritage in this European Year of the Environment.
