Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jun 1996

Vol. 467 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Foley

Once again the Government is rejecting an Opposition Bill which seeks to provide something that it has neither the imagination nor the inclination to do. I congratulate Deputy Quill on her initiative and work in drafting the Bill, especially when one considers the lack of resources available to Opposition Members in this regard. When my party returns to Government in the very near future I will do my best to ensure that is dealt with in a professional manner.

In introducing the Bill last night Deputy Quill stated:

This is the first major conservation Bill since the foundation of the State. Its purpose is to give proper protection in law to our built environment. The provisions of this Bill extend not only to buildings of particular architectural importance but also to buildings of historic, cultural and artistic significance.

By any standards this is a worthwhile Bill and deserves support. The arguments put forward by the Minister of State last night were weak. I could not help smiling when I heard her make the usual reference to the Government's plan to address the matters in the Bill. If the Opposition introduced a Bill to outlaw growing beards or to ban smoking in a cigarette factory, the Government would reject it on the grounds that it had a similar and better Bill in preparation.

In recent weeks and months the Taoiseach has responded to almost every question about promised legislation with the words, "it will be published in October or November". Deputy O'Dea recently reckoned that at least 18 Bills will come before the Dáil at that time, but during the past week or two that figure increased to approximately 24. Next October and November will be an exciting time in this House. It is important that any civilised nation should guard its heritage to the best of its ability. My party can be proud of its record in this area, especially under the stewardship of Charles Haughey as Taoiseach. The preservation and restoration work in the Temple Bar area is a good example of this.

The Minister of State referred to the cost to local authorities of implementing some of the provisions in the Bill. Successive Governments, including the present one, frequently enacted legislation which requires local authorities to implement various provisions without any commitment on funding from the Exchequer. Only last night we passed Second Stage of the Control of Horses Bill which will require local authorities to provide all facilities, including pounds, for stray horses. The Litter Act also passed the buck to local authorities. There is no reason the suggestions made could not be incorporated in the planning regulations.

Mr. Ring

I wish to share my time with Deputies Ryan, Byrne and Boylan.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. Ring

Before the turn of the century there were more than 2,000 stately homes in this country, there are now only 50. There are three or four in Connacht and Westport House, one of the finest estates in the country, is located in my constituency. The estate hopes to welcome its two millionth visitor this year. For the past 35 years the Browne family have exhausted much of their own money in promoting the estate all over the world. Lord Altamont has invested millions of pounds in the estate and the Browne family has done more than the Government to promote tourism and stately homes.

The Government and Mayo County Council plan to locate a sewerage plant in the middle of the estate. Lord Altamont, the Browne family and the people of Westport want a sewerage scheme but not in the middle of the Westport House estate. The family have offered an alternative site. Locals can visit the estate any day of the week and the people do not want this estate destroyed or vandalised.

Will the Minister of State discuss this matter with the Minister for the Environment to ensure that Westport House does not become another statistic, like the many other stately homes that have been destroyed since the turn of the century? The cost of using the alternative site would be minimal and would prevent the destruction of this beautiful home. I call for the support of all Members in this regard.

I do not know a great deal about stately homes. I came into the House to contribute to this debate because I love Westport House and enjoy taking my children through its grounds on a Sunday. I compliment Lord Altamont and the Browne family for investing in their home and on opening it to the public. It is pointless bringing legislation before the House if the people in power do not want to protect this beautiful site. Instead of putting a sewerage plant in the middle of the estate we should offer the Browne family millions of pounds to fund their initiative. Bord Fáilte has not given them any assistance. Lord Altamont has done more for Westport than Bord Fáilte. I do not want this heritage house destroyed and the alternative site should be used to save this stately home. I ask the Minister and the Government to provide assistance so the public may visit this House.

Mr. S. Ryan

I assure Deputy Ring that I support this objective and that of Lord Altamont. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. I congratulate Deputy Quill for bringing it forward and I compliment her on her efforts in preparing it. Its aim is to strengthen the protection offered to listed buildings under planning legislation and to introduce the concept of conservation areas. We are all aware that the present system of protecting buildings under our planning Acts is totally unacceptable and must be addressed as a matter of urgency. This Bill, warts and all, affords us an opportunity to begin this debate, which is long overdue.

The Government in its programme A Government of Renewal commits itself to improving the protection for listed buildings and to introduce incentives for the proper upkeep and maintenance of such buildings. In the context of this commitment, I was pleased to hear the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, say the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht had established an interdepartmental working group to examine the complex issues involved. I was particularly pleased to hear its findings have been presented to the Ministers in the past few days. I do not want to see this report gather dust on a shelf in one of those Departments. Action is required and I hope another planning Bill will be introduced during the life of this Government.

Tourism has the potential to play an even more significant role in the future growth of our economy. We all recognise this country is not a sunshine holiday destination and we must plan accordingly. One of our strengths is the attractiveness of Ireland as a scenic and cultural destination, particularly for continental visitors. In this regard, the preservation of listed buildings has an important role to play. Listed buildings, which range from great houses and gardens to traditional cottages and other stone buildings such as mills and barns, etc, are under threat. Most local authorities have buildings listed in their development plans. For instance, the former Dublin County Council development plan listed thousands of buildings, most of them in private ownership. Notwithstanding the listings, we have witnessed the scandal of buildings being allowed to fall into disrepair to the dismay of the relevant local authority and activists. We have seen bulldozers come in overnight to knock down some of these buildings.

As the Minister outlined, the issue of funding for the protection and maintenance of listed buildings must be addressed. I accept her assertion that the Bill is defective in this area. I was interested to hear that Bord Fáilte, in its tourism development plan, referred to a property owning trust along the lines of the National Trust in England which involves business sponsorship and public funding. Perhaps that is something which can be discussed at a later stage.

The thatched cottage is part of our heritage and is a tourist attraction. I am aware of a dedicated group of volunteers in my constituency, known as the Thatched Cottage Preservation Society of Fingal, who restored old thatched cottages as a pastime. There is a grant scheme to preserve the thatched cottages, but there is a specification that the dwelling in question must be occupied prior to a grant being provided. I urge the Minister to review the scheme to facilitate groups like that to which I referred who wish to rethatch buildings not to provide living accommodation but as an addition to our heritage.

The Minister referred to the financial support provided to local authorities though the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Renewal Development. In my constituency two villages, Lusk and Rush, have benefited from the village renewal scheme. The £200,000 grant provided in 1995 for Lusk highlighted the cultural and tourist potential of the village by promoting and enhancing its history and buildings. Furthermore, it is proposed to refurbish McCullin's church, which is also a listed building. This year's allocation of £170,000 for Rush will make a huge contribution to the conservation of the village and its buildings.

I am aware the future of urban renewal is being considered by the Minister and the Government. This scheme, which offers incentive by way of tax relief and remissions where work on urban renewal is carried out on buildings located in areas designated by the Minister for the Environment, has been very successful. The Minister will be aware that Balbriggan Town Commissioners and the Balbriggan Chamber of Commerce have made a submission to the Government outlining a case for designated area status for Balbriggan town. Balbriggan, which was once an industrial town and has tremendous potential for growth, requires the benefit of urban renewal status and I urge the Minister to use his influence to secure this designation.

I hope another planning Bill will be enacted during this Dáil. With that in mind, I will make a few recommendations which, although outside the remit of this Bill, should be addressed in the context of any reform of our planning laws. Since the 1993 Dublin County Council development plan, we witnessed the introduction of a new ploy by some developers and landowners. They used the legitimate needs of voluntary, sporting and community organisations for pitches and halls as a lever to influence their case for rezoning. Legislation should be enacted to counteract this and to enable the planning authority, if it so wishes, to put conditions in planning permission requesting that a contribution be made to amenity and recreational programmes in the area of the proposed development, something which is not provided for at present.

Another aspect of planning which needs to be addressed is the problem and scandal of unfinished housing estates. It is unacceptable that individuals and couples who have saved and mortgaged themselves to the hilt should have to wait ten to 15 years for their estates to be taken in hand and for the dedication of open spaces. This problem is prevalent in my constituency and is caused by a minority of cowboy builders. To deal with this and to restore confidence in the planning code, I recommend to the Government that new planning legislation be enacted to enable the previous track record of builders to be taken into account when considering planning applications. It is scandalous that builders can submit further applications while residents and mortgagees must live in unfinished estates for ten to 15 years. Something must be done about that.

Another issue which should be considered is the role of An Bord Pleanála and the fact that it does not have to abide by development plans drawn up by local authorities when considering planning appeals. Given the importance of the issues raised during the debate, I hope the Government will give them the priority they deserve. In the context of the promised legislation, I hope the broader planning issue which I raised will be addressed to ensure the planning system operates to the benefit of the people.

Mr. Boylan

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important matter and I compliment Deputy Quill on bringing it to our attention. I am aware that the Minister has proposals on our built heritage, of which we are the custodians. We have a rich built heritage of castles and country homes — some describe them as stately homes, but some of those buildings are falling into disrepair.

Unfortunately there is an element of vandalism involved in that the buildings are gutted and the slates, generally Blue Bangor which are not available today, are used in the building of modern homes. Much of the stone work in these buildings is also irreplaceable. There should be a preservation order on all such buildings, whether occupied or not, so that nobody interferes with them without the permission of the local authority. It would not be possible to deal with this matter at a higher level; it must be done at local level. There is a belief that all such buildings should be preserved.

In some cases these buildings are sold to people who use the materials in modern constructions. That is outrageous and we will be failing in our duty if we continue to allow that to happen. Those buildings were handed down to us and we should preserve them for future generations. We have the craftsmanship to restore them, although I thought at one time that we no longer had those skills. Young people are trained under FÁS schemes to carry out restoration work in graveyards, old buildings and mills. I am amazed at the improvements that have taken place in that regard. I am delighted that crafts are still practised and they should be fostered. There should be no cutting of corners by Government agencies in terms of funding. The necessary funding should be made available to restore buildings and preserve them for future generations.

I support the case made by Deputy Ring for a stately home and estate which is being desecrated by a local authority. That is unacceptable. Local authorities should not be allowed carry out the type of work proposed for that estate, which will destroy it forever. That is an illustration of the damage done by local authorities and Government agencies. I hope the Minister and his officials will take note of this matter.

Many fine houses, castles and stately homes were built 200 or 300 years ago. There was great foresight in the building of those premises and in the landscaping, which took years to bring to fruition. That work should not be destroyed with one fell swoop of a chainsaw or bulldozer. We will never be forgiven if we allow that to happen. I am sure that as a result of the efforts of people such as Deputy Quill and the Minister such buildings will be preserved. The Minister, Deputy McManus, for whom I have high regard, is committed to this matter and has shown that interest on a number of visits to my county relating to housing schemes and inquiries about old buildings, of which she was aware.

Five years ago Cavan County Council debated the question of the courthouse in Cavan town, a magnificent building which was greatly in need of restoration. The argument arose as to whether the building should be restored or demolished and replaced by what some engineers from the Office of Public Works term a purpose-built buildings. The restoration programme was estimated to cost £3 million while the purpose-built building was estimated at £1.5 million. Other important works in the county, such as road improvements and so on, were the subject of public debate over the years and it was difficult to convince councillors that restoration work should be carried out on the courthouse. I commend everybody involved in the decision, which was not an easy one, to restore the building. When the President recently visited the area she admired the building, of which we are proud. That is one example of what can be done if the will is there and the people are prepared to support such projects.

I regret I have not more time to speak on this matter. I commend Deputy Quill on bringing forward the Bill. I fully support the programme of work proposed and I will be interested to see whether the proposals are set down in legislation.

Mr. E. Byrne

Anybody who has had the opportunity to visit our offices in Kildare House, across the road from Leinster House, will have seen a plaque on the wall stating that Sydney Owenson — Lady Morgan — lived on that site. People who ramble through the city will be aware that there are countless such plaques throughout Dublin. In many cases the original buildings have been demolished. There is widespread agreement in this House and elsewhere that the current system of preserving our built heritage is inadequate. That concern is reflected in the Programme for Government which includes a commitment to place the system of listed buildings on a statutory basis and to introduce incentives for the proper upkeep and maintenance of these buildings.

Yesterday the Minister, Deputy McManus, outlined some of the progress made in this regard. The report of the inter-departmental working group is currently under consideration. The urban and village renewal sub-programmes address some of the issues involved in the decline of our built environment. Much more needs to be done, however, and I look forward to the introduction of an integrated package of measures which will conserve what remains of our architectural heritage.

The Minister is correct that we should not introduce legislation until the whole range of related measures has been finalised. Anybody who takes a casual stroll through the streets of Dublin's inner city will realise the need to conserve what remains of our capital's built environment. Approximately 200 years ago the finest examples of Georgian architecture outside Bath in England were to be seen in Dublin, but much of that grandeur was deceptive. Behind the very impressive facades of St. Stephen's Green, Mountjoy Square, North Great George's Street, Henrietta Street and so on lay a world of great prosperity and alongside it abject poverty and exploitation; they existed cheek by jowl. Dublin consisted of the inner city and suburbs such as that where I live in Terenure were little more than outlying villages. The trade needed to support the capital was carried on within the inner city area, in the Liberties, Smithfield and in the docks area.

We must preserve not only the Georgian and Regency architecture for which Dublin is famous but also the vernacular architecture, including the artisan houses and cottages — one of which I grew up in — which have an important architectural lineage in regard to the history of the city. Those houses made the city what it is today. We must also conserve examples of industrial architecture which are unique in our city.

The architectural decay we are debating is not a recent phenomenon. Around the middle of the 19th century the administrative, cultural and commercial centre of Dublin moved south of the Liffey, abandoning the Georgian squares and avenues of the north city to rack-renting landlords who gradually turned some of our finest buildings into tenements.

In this century Dublin has had to contend with examples of depressingly designed architecture which produced monstrosities. We are all familiar with Liberty Hall and O'Connell Bridge House. One side of St. Stephen's Green was sacrificed to the mania for mirrored glass and brick and the first phase of the civic offices is now known to a generation of Dubliners as "the bunker". Those buildings were erected on a unique archaeological site at Wood Quay. I acknowledge that the second phase of the civic offices is a welcome addition to Dublin's streetscape and I would like to see more buildings of such an exemplary quality. It is a magnificent development that should be applauded.

We do not need pastiches of our past but an innovative cultural and architectural excellence which will produce a legacy of fine buildings, such as the second phase of the civic offices, we can pass on to future generations. We must ensure that the architecture of today will be worthy of conservation in the future.

When I speak of conservation I do not mean simply putting a blanket preservation order on every structure built 100 or 200 years ago. The Georgian and Victorian eras were as prone to architectural lapses as our own generation and the challenge facing us is to achieve harmony between the past and the present.

Dublin is not the only city or town that has suffered from examples of ill considered development. I understand Drogheda Corporation is proposing to allow a shopping centre to be built on a medieval and archaeological site against the advice of the Office of Public Works. Conservation means more than simple architectural preservation; it means preserving buildings and monuments which have particular historical and cultural associations.

I find it profoundly depressing that there is a proposal to demolish the James Joyce home in Drumcondra and replace it with an apartment block. I hope that plan will not come to fruition and the house will not only be preserved but restored to its original grandeur.

We urgently need to devise a simple non-bureaucratic mechanism under which the local authority preservation lists can be added to as required. A great deal of procedure must be gone through when one discovers that a building cannot be protected because it is not listed.

Much of the damage to which I refer has been passive rather than active. For every building of debatable architectural merit erected in recent decades, a dozen buildings of real value have been allowed to fall into decay. As a member of Dublin Corporation I see the evidence of that neglect on a regular basis. The civic offices which I praised a moment ago were built beside the Casey house, the oldest continuously inhabited building in Dublin. It was built in the 17th century and it stands on its own supported on either side by wooden buttresses and is now steel framed to keep it standing. That is one of the many buildings waiting for politicians to finally take action and call a halt to this type of neglect.

Much of the architectural vandalism, active and passive, was perpetrated on our capital city while Fianna Fáil was in office. I welcome its belated conversion to the cause of conservation and look forward to its co-operation when this Government introduces measures to address the problem.

Mr. Dempsey

I wish to share my time with Deputies Smith and Sargent.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory.

Mr. Dempsey

I do not accept Deputy Byrne's criticism of Fianna Fáil in the past and I am sure Democratic Left has shown itself to have jumped the fence completely by its opposition to this Bill and the excellent measures proposed in it. Before Deputy Byrne leaves the Chamber, I suggest he talk to his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, and appeal to her not to oppose the Bill on Second Stage and the principle of conservation of our heritage. If he does that now the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, when replying to the debate, might be in a position to announce that the Government has come to its senses and will accept the Bill.

Mr. E. Byrne

I assure Deputy Dempsey I have already spoken to the Minister of State and she has assured me the legislation she will introduce is superior to the Bill before the House.

Mr. Dempsey

Deputy Byrne has his five minutes.

Mr. E. Byrne

The Minister of State has committed herself to a better Bill than that before the House.

Mr. Dempsey

There will not be a better Bill before the House because this Government will not last long enough to produce one.

Mr. E. Byrne

That is wishful thinking.

Mr. Carey

Deputy Dempsey would get a shock.

Mr. Dempsey

It will be a shock because I do not believe it will happen. I welcome the Bill because it addresses many important issues in the planning and heritage areas. I congratulate Deputy Quill on introducing it. I am sure the Deputy, like all of us, will accept that the Bill is not perfect. No Bill that comes before this House is perfect but listening to the Minister of State last night one would think that every Bill must be perfect. Bills are not always perfect when they come before this House but our work allows us to perfect them. I am certain this Bill can be amended and improved in committee and we would all like to participate in that process.

Fianna Fáil had a Bill in preparation which addressed some of the issues dealt with in Deputy Quill's Bill. We would be happy for that Bill to go into committee and for our amendments to be considered, rather than a separate Bill being produced. In other words, the two Bills could be married. I look forward to the Government accepting this Bill and sending it to a special committee so that we can consider amendments.

A number of issues need to be addressed, some of which are mentioned in the Bill. We favour the idea of preserving streetscapes rather than single buildings. Listed buildings should be put on a statutory footing, a move we support and will pursue. Heritage officers should be appointed to continually police the use of listed buildings and ensure they are not totally neglected or destroyed, as has happened to many buildings. We are all aware of examples.

We favour the imposition of severe penalties for neglect of listed buildings or actions that lead to the destruction of such buildings. In particular, we should use the planning code in a more effective way by applying severe penalties for planning breaches where listed buildings are involved.

The Grammar School in Drogheda is an example of the type of destruction that can occur under our planning code. They are some of the areas we would like to see addressed on Committee Stage.

The Minister of State, Deputy McManus, said last night that if we enact legislation without the necessary administrative and financial support we only bring our legislation into disrepute. I am delighted the Minister of State has been converted to some form of rational behaviour. Her party in Opposition had instant answers to everything, but in Government, it appears to take a different approach to this and many other issues. The Minister of State appears oblivious to the fact that the Government's failure to act in the past 19 months by not addressing the issues in this Bill has brought the Government and its promises into disrepute.

This Bill represents all-party concern and consensus about the problems with our built heritage. The Minister of State, in her remarks last night and on "Morning Ireland" this morning, injected an unnecessarily partisan and shrill tone to the debate. Her facetiousness was underlined by the paucity of the Government's record over the past 19 months. The Government has produced nothing in this area except an unpublished report. It will not be published but circulated to Ministers so they can prevaricate for another period of months, perhaps for as long as they remain in Government. The Minister of State should announce tonight that the report will be published in tandem with Committee Stage consideration of this Bill. The only acceptable alternative to this legislation is a better proposal from the Minister of State and that has not been forthcoming. I hope this Bill will be allowed to go to committee.

In listing the shortcomings of the Bill, the Minister of State highlighted the extent of her activity over the past 19 months. The Government's response was churlish and unfortunate. The Minister of State has successfully undermined whatever credibility this Government had on the conservation issue. My colleagues, Deputies de Valera and Ryan, have set out in detail the Fianna Fáil response to the Bill and our general policy on built heritage.

I will briefly underline the many positive aspects of this Bill. New and valuable legal definitions of what constitutes built heritage are introduced. Sections dealing with the interiors and surrounds of houses afford, for the first time, legal protection to this part of our built heritage. The exclusion of demolition of listed features from the planning process will be ended. The Bill provides for mandatory listing of all buildings constituting the built heritage. These provisions must constitute the basis of any effective programme of action in this area. The Minister of State last night identified these measures as essential. However, in pointing out the problems that would be encountered in implementing the Bill the Minister of State, perhaps without meaning to, offered a litany of the actions the Government has failed to take on this issue in the past 19 months.

The destruction of our built heritage continues apace. There were many references in this debate to 15 Usher's Quay, location for James Joyce's short story "The Dead", which is practically derelict. We can offer many other examples of neglect throughout the country. There are also many examples of built heritage that are under immediate threat. Relentless pressure from commercial forces is more corrosive than the preceding years of neglect. It is extraordinary that the Government, whose programme included an explicit commitment to protect our built heritage, opposed this worthwhile measure while failing to bring forward even one positive Government proposal. That the responsible Minister of State choose to oppose it in a gratuitously partisan fashion has added insult to injury. She added further injury through her attitude on the radio this morning.

Earlier this year my colleague. Deputy Ryan, produced a Fianna Fáil policy paper on Georgian Dublin. It set out a comprehensive policy for the preservation and rejuvenation of our Georgian heritage. Before the publication of this Bill, Fianna Fáil was working on its own Private Members' Bill to deal with listed buildings and their interiors. It is unacceptable that the Opposition parties, despite their paltry resources, can produce programmes and Bills while the Government can produce nothing in a period of 19 months. It underlines the fact that there is no real commitment to this issue on the part of the Government.

The carping response by the Minister of State has effectively ended the previous bipartisan and constructive approach of all parties to this issue. Fianna Fáil is no longer prepared to accept the bona findes of the Minister of State and her colleagues on heritage issues. I view with suspicion the failure to produce the interdepartmental report on preservation. This Bill was published weeks ago and there is no good reason the report could not have been available by now. There is also no good reason it should not be made available to the public.

I congratulate Deputy Quill on her work. The Government's response has been disgraceful. The Minister of State could offer nothing positive but excuses about needing time to study the report which is already on hand. She had not studied the report although I would have expected somebody who had the task of responding to this Bill to have at least studied the report in great detail. The arrogance displayed by the Minister of State would do credit to somebody who had been in office for at least a decade and who had totally lost touch with reality and the people.

Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. Carey)

That is what happens in Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Dempsey

This Minister of State has not reached that stage yet and I doubt he will.

It is clear that the Government will not produce a Bill on this issue. The report is now being studied by a number of Ministers and, as I know from my experience as Chief Whip, it will take a considerable period for even heads of a Bill to be produced. A Bill will not be produced by this Government before it leaves office. Is it not ironic that last evening a Democratic Left Minister of State, in an effort to postpone doing anything about conservation, should have spent time defending the rights of speculators and property owners, indicating another U-turn on the part of Democratic Left?

I appeal to the Minister of State present, Deputy Carey, and his colleague in the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Jim Higgins, who I gather will be addressing the House later, not to oppose this Bill. A couple of weeks ago people on the Government side of the House accused us of opposing the principle of light rail because we voted against a Second Reading of the earlier Bill. We have explained why we did so, which I hope is accepted. Despite the fact that there are many other ways in which they can prevent the progress of this Bill, if members of the Government parties troop through the lobbies and vote against the principles of this Bill this evening they must acknowledge that they are voting against the preservation of our heritage, something for which the public will not easily forgive them.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

I understand that Deputy Brendan Smith proposes to share time with Deputy Sargent.

Mr. B. Smith

I join my party colleagues in complimenting Deputy Quill on her initiative on having had this worthwhile Bill drafted and introduced. Deputy Eoin Ryan, who published our party's policy position for Georgian Dublin, committed us in Government to the implementation of measures to rejuvenate Dublin's inner city. Such measures must not be confined to Dublin. The implementation of similar schemes in provincial and other towns, regardless of size, would be of major benefit in their regeneration.

It is generally accepted that the present requirement for the listing of buildings is inadequate, in addition to not providing the necessary practical protection. There is also renewed interest in and appreciation of conservation and preservation of our heritage and culture. Two important Bills were put through both Houses by the previous Government — the National Monuments Bill and the Heritage Council Bill — representing a further important administrative landmark in the identification, cultivation and preservation of our national heritage.

There is recognition that all of our citizens should have easy access to arts activities, that areas of cultural and heritage value should receive the attention and care they merit. Hopefully, future generations will not look back to this one and claim that we did not adequately protect our heritage, but rather will be in a position to say that in this respect adequate care and attention was exercised.

The restoration of many buildings to a proper state of repair is beyond the means of many property owners who, if not given grant assistance or tax relief, will have no option but to allow them continue to deteriorate. In such instances State assistance would be more than justified.

Our school and educational institutions have a vital role to play in the nuturing and preservation of our heritage, providing young people with plenty of opportunities to engage in projects highlighting the heritage of their localities. These projects give much greater meaning and historical relevance to them.

Perhaps none of us attaches sufficient significance to the work of the many historical societies who have carried out important work and contributed so much to the preservation of our heritage. For example, I am aware of the very valuable work undertaken by societies such as those in Breffni in Cavan and Farney in Monaghan and the Armagh and Donegal societies. In many instances these are the only vehicles creating an awareness of the richness of our heritage while simultaneously highlighting the need to maintain and preserve those riches. Voluntary local groups can play a key role in the preservation and management of our rich history. The villages and towns urban renewal scheme provided the Minister for the Environment and his Department with a valuable opportunity to carry out much needed improvements to regenerate our many towns and villages.

In the course of marking the 150th anniversary of that unfortunate, desperate period in our history, the Great Famine, I appeal to the Government to pay special attention to the many workhouses, particularly those that remain intact, which should be identified and sensibly restored. In my home village of Bawnboy in County Cavan the local authority is anxious to undertake restoration work but has not the necessary resources. It would be a worthwhile exercise on the part of our Department of the Environment, with its counterpart in Northern Ireland, to engage in a joint programme on the conservation of buildings and other artefacts of historic or heritage value throughout this island. We should remember that we share the heritage of this island, something which could be usefully built on within an all-Ireland context.

Prominent buildings do not represent the only features of our heritage in need of protection. Sites and, in some instances, semi-derelict buildings of historic and heritage value need to be identified and protected. This could lead to many other worthwhile developments.

One of my hobbyhorses is the development of monastic sites from a tourist point of view. The development of island monastic sites on the River Erne would create an alternative tourist amenity based on two central features — their location on major navigational waterways and rich, historic and archaeological content. While endeavouring to promote alternative tourist attractions and amenities, the Government should give such proposals adequate consideration. I have in mind St. Mogue's Island, Drumlane and Trinity Islands in my own county and Boa, White and Devenish Islands in the neighbouring county of Fermanagh. The similarities and differences between such monastic sites would be an interesting theme to develop and provide a useful alternative tourism product within the South Ulster region. A survey undertaken of holidaymakers to this country some years ago indicated that 65 per cent visited historical sites, further underlining the importance of our heritage and the need for its preservation and enhancement.

Mr. Sargent

Ba mhaíth liom tacú leis an mBille atá os ár gcomhair agus buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Máirín Quill as an obair a rinne sí chun an Bille a chur chun cinn. Is mór an trua, áfach, go bhfuil an Rialtas ag iarraidh an bua a fháil ar an mBille sa phróiséas reachtaíochta.

Ag an am chéanna dúirt an tAire Stáit, An Teachta McManus, gur Bille maith é agus go bhfuil gá leis. Chuala mé ar an raidio ar maídin go bhfuil An Taisce an-shásta leis chomh maith.

It appears the Government has forgotten its raison d'être, which is to prepare and introduce good legislation and work in a democratic manner with other parties whenever good ideas emerge rather than oppose them merely for that sake.

We heard a spokesperson for An Taisce questioned about this Bill this morning when he pointed out that it was good, that he could not see anything wrong with it but that it was important that the necessary resources should be made available to ensure its successful implementation, something to which the Government should be devoting attention. It appears the Government does not want anybody else to have the credit for its introduction. This is very shortsighted and counter-productive since it will postpone the introduction of another Bill which we shall await with bated breath. Yesterday we debated the Control of Horses Bill which had been in course of preparation since the Minister for Social Welfare was a member of The Workers' Party. In the event of the Government rejecting this Bill, I hope it will indicate some deadline for the introduction of an alternative.

I compliment those organisations that have exerted pressure on Government to ensure that a Bill would be introduced. An Taisce is one of those organisations but, as Deputy Brendan Smith said, many historical societies around the country have done trojan work in reawakening citizens to the heritage disappearing before their very eyes. I also compliment Fingal County Council on some of its restoration work. This must be contrasted with its plans for the town park in Swords on which it is proposed to erect a county hall. This is a travesty of urban planning. No doubt An Taisce would agree.

The implementation of this Bill will be dependent on the necessary resources being made available. Dublin is cited as an example, but it is important to compare Dublin with other cities. A friend who returned from Lisbon told me that although there are many old buildings there they are inhabited and the people there respect their heritage. The city had a lived in feeling, which is an attraction. Too often Dublin has been associated with a large number of derelict buildings and many of them have remained derelict for too long. That needs to be addressed through legislation.

In the past there was a lack of appreciation of our built heritage, particularly the interiors of buildings, and the substance of this Bill, in essence, addresses that area. I hope the message will be heard and that this area will be addressed in legislation. Too often the owners of high quality heritage property have relied on tax incentives, which are limited in scope. Such incentives have encouraged large corporations to become involved in property speculation for the sole purpose of tax benefits without any great appreciation of the built heritage. Many old buildings that were supposedly refurbished, have been gutted. The facades have been left standing starkly like a skeleton and the interiors have been torn apart and rebuilt similar to a Legoland structure. That must stop as it is making a mockery of our built heritage.

Anomalies in legislation, such as stamp duty charged on old buildings, must be addressed. New house buyers enjoy a first time buyer's grant and given an incentive to buy a new house rather than encouraged to buy and sensitively restore an old one. That must change.

Another factor that discourages people from making use of old buildings is that while many of them probably housed the nobility in the past, present day owners who wish to subdivide them to make them practical living quarters must pay extra stamp duty. If one subdivides an old building one must pay double the stamp duty.

Many organisations, housing associations and charitable trusts are very keen to take charge of old buildings, but they are dealing with an unfair system. Large corporations and venture capitalists, who arguably do not have any great appreciation of the built heritage, can buy up old buildings and need only comply in a minimalist fashion with the rules. Organisations, which do not have the necessary funds and cannot avail of tax incentives, but whose members have the necessary expertise, but not the finance, are discriminated against and the old buildings suffer as a result. It is important that point is made. Until we change the law, we are writing a charter not for protecting our heritage, but for speculators, large property developers and people who pretend to care for their heritage, but take advantage of it for tax reasons.

Minister for Arts Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. M. Higgins)

Faoi mar a dúirt an tAire Stáit sa Roinn Comhshaoil, An Teachta McManus, aréir, tá cuspóirí ginearálta an Bhille seo inghlachta. Tá tábhacht ar leith leis an mbunábhar agus tuilleann sé freagra cuimsitheach, rud nach soláthraíonn an Bille, agus is dá thoradh sin go bhfuil orm cur in aghaidh an Bhille.

D'eist mé le an-chuid de na Teachtaí a labhair inné agus inniu agus glacaim len a lán de na bun-phrionsabail a luaigh siad. Caithfimid céimeanna a thógaint mar fhreagra ar na ceisteanna a d'árdaigh siad.

Contributors from all sides of the House during the past two days spoke of the need to better protect our built heritage. I and the Government share their concerns. We have given a commitment in our policy agreement, A Government of Renewal, to improve the protection of listed buildings, to introduce incentives for the proper upkeep and maintenance of these important buildings, and we will fulfil this commitment. We should respond to the anomaly that arises in respect of a listing that describes the external appearance of properties while internal aspects have been allowed to be defiled.

To ensure a coherent and comprehensive approach to the important question of strengthening the protection of our architectural heritage, I and the Minister for the Environment jointly established an interdepartmental working group to look at all aspects of the matter and to make recommendations. The group presented its report within the past few days. This will now be examined urgently by other Government Departments and the Government will then consider the matter and publish its proposals. Deputy Dempsey said he did not believe the report would be published and he challenged the Minister to give a clear undertaking that it would. It will be published but it is reasonable that we should have an opportunity to reflect on it and prepare our response. That publication with one on our architectural heritage could probably be published together to inform the debate and encourage a proper response. I said I am not hostile — and neither is the Minister for the Environment — to the spirit of this Bill or its intention. I welcome the concern that motivates it. The structure of the Bill and the constitutional problems it throws up as well as administration problems, including its implications for planning law and some other legal aspects, deserve attention.

I will concentrate on the question of the inventory of the architectural heritage. It is well accepted internationally that an inventory is an essential prerequisite to taking action for the protection of the architectural heritage, the baseline for initiating policy. An inventory is the basic management tool for any resource and it facilitates the formulation and implementation of policy with respect for the preservation of cultural property. Only after a systematic programme of identification, classification and evaluation of the architectural heritage has been carried out, can informed judgments be arrived at and a planned programme of preservation put in place, using a combination of legislative safeguards and financial incentives. I listened sympathetically to the points made and acknowledge that a combination of these two factors will probably achieve the best result.

International recognition of the importance of an inventory is expressed in the European Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage, usually referred to as the Granada Convention. In response to the commitments of the convention, the Office of Public Works undertook to establish a national inventory of architecture, commencing in 1991. Complementing the Archaeological Survey of Ireland which uses 1700 AD as a rough cut-off point, the National Inventory of Architecture concentrates on recording post-1700 buildings and structures. As a national survey, compiled by a single central authority, the initiative is attempting to achieve a standard of consistency that will remain uniform throughout the country and which can be relied upon to give clear and impartial guidance to those involved in the preservation of the architectural heritage. The success of the aforementioned Archaeological Survey of Ireland is testimony to the value of undertaking a full inventory. The publication of the Sites and Monuments Record has seen the information collected from that survey used to enhance the value of the archaeological heritage and save it from destruction. Responsibility for the archaeological and architectural inventories has now been transferred to my Department. That baseline archaeological survey informed the legislation. It set out the field that had to be addressed by way of legislation and it will inform policy which, in turn, will be a mixture of legislation and incentives. When one knows the state of the field and has a consistency of practice, one can aim for best practice, which is very important.

The completion of an architectural inventory will necessarily have a long timescale. The inter departmental working group suggested that even if the full target is to be achieved within a reasonable timescale, for example 25 years, the resources available need to be increased substantially. The figure of 25 years may appear unduly long, but I am told it is comparable to that required in other countries for such an inventory. Clearly, we will need to adopt a two-speed approach and this view is supported by the working group which recommended a preliminary listing survey. We should set a target of about three years for the completion of this preliminary survey which would identify most of the buildings that deserve to be listed and preserved, provided adequate staff and financial resources can be made available. This must be done without compromising the high standards set for the National Inventory of Architecture. In doing that, I and the Minister for the Environment, are sensitive to the anomaly that has been thrown up in a listing that describes the external physical structure of a building but seems to omit the integrity of the interior. Members have given examples of how that anomaly can lead to the destruction of an old building and we are ad idem in trying to address that.

I regard the carrying out of this preliminary survey as an essential element of the package required to ensure the protection of the architectural heritage. I hope that real progress will be made on this and on the other elements, that is the enactment of appropriate legislation to which the Government is committed and the provision of financial incentives in the light of the report which we have received from the working group. It is my intention and that of the Minister for the Environment to publish the report to inform the debate in the period prior to the Government introducing legislation. We will have an opportunity to consider it in detail. Other implications arise. The working group's report clearly lays down the implications that arise for local authorities. It is important that any measures take into account the different levels of responsibility and implications for the State, the local authorities and private owners, and that we end up with something that is cohesive.

I do not oppose this Bill in principle but in terms of the practical issues it throws up of a constitutional, legal and administrative kind. When we bring forward legislation, financial incentives and codes of practice based on the inventories, the partnership we have with the Heritage Council will be very important. Rather than risking the Bill being challenged on the basis of individual or collective constitutional and property rights, we should seek to address that possibility by structuring the Bill to protect it from such a challenge. In the context of best practice by planning authorities, it would be best if in matters of heritage, the Heritage Council, supported by legislation and an incentive scheme, was able as much as possible to work hand in hand with local authorities to achieve the best result.

I reluctantly oppose the Bill on the basis that the legislation could be made more certain in some areas. I appreciate the motivation and the spirit of its introduction, which I share. I assure the House that many of the contributions made here will be taken into consideration in bringing forward the legislative implementation of the Government's programme.

Miss Quill

It is nothing less than contemptible that a Cabinet Minister would come here this evening and not address a single feature of a Bill which has been under consideration by the House for the past two evenings. The only direct reference to the Bill was when the Minister said there were features of it which might be unconstitutional. He did not say what those features were. He did not even do me the courtesy of telling me where this Bill might be found to be unconstitutional. I regard this as a pathetic performance by any standards. However, I am heartended by the contributions of every other Member of the House who spoke this evening. Having heard their contributions, their clear understanding of what now needs to be done, their commitment to the built environment and to the environment generally, and their deep knowledge of environmental issues, my deep regret is that this Bill will not now go to committee so that the experience and commitment of those Members could be harnessed to improve the Bill where it needs improvement.

I support what was said by Deputy Michael Ring in respect of Westport House. It is little short of an outrage that a local authority would propose to put a sewage treatment scheme in the heart of the grounds of Westport House, thereby constituting a gross interference with the integrity of the parkland that is an integral part of that fine house. If this Bill was in place that could not happen, because my definition of what constitutes a building that must be conserved includes the concept of the curtilage or surrounding of that building, and that buildings must be judged in their natural and historic setting. This Bill would have prevented what is happening at Westport House. I still hope that, with the commitment of people like Deputy Ring, what is proposed for Westport House will be averted.

I thank Deputies Boylan, de Valera, Eoin Ryan, and all the other Members from all parties who spoke in support of the Bill last evening. I found it most heartening, and I am sorry that their expertise cannot be engaged in a more systematic way in the future shaping of our built environment.

I listened with absolute disbelief, however, to the Minister of State, Deputy McManus in this House last evening and on "Morning Ireland" this morning. What she had to say on this Bill filled me with sadness more than anger. It is patently obvious that the protection of our built environment is not a priority with this Government. It is clear the Government has no legislation of its own at this point. The Minister of State said so on radio this morni ing, there is no prospect of any Government legislation on this matter this side of the next general election. In the full knowledge of this I brought forward the legislation which the Minister of State, and the Ministers here tonight, propose to vote down this evening. I can say with absolute confidence that this is a good Bill. It was carefully drafted and painstakingly prepared. During the course of its preparation I consulted widely and repeatedly with bodies who have an interest and expertise in this area. I studied legislation from other jurisdictions. Expert opinion has assured me that my proposals are the correct onces. Having said that, I do not claim this Bill is perfect. That is why I said in my opening speech that I would very much appreciate it if the Government could see its way to puting the Bill into committee where it could be perfected as all Bills are in this House, whether they spring from a Government or an Opposition source. That could and should have been done. The Minister of State, Deputy McManus, in an unchallenged free run on radio this morning, accused me of not saying where the moneys could be found to finance this Bill. That was her main argument for not supporting it. In response let me say it is not permitted in the context of a Private Members' Bill to make proposals that put a direct charge on the Exchequer. The Minister knows that. Had I so done, she would have had acceptable grounds for voting down this Bill. It was dishonest of her to make that criticism on radio when there was nobody to contradict her statement. My only response is that it was difficult for her to find any more substantial reason for voting against this Bill. The poverty of spirit shown by the Government parties in regard to this Bill chills me.

Money spent on conservation projects in other countries was considered a worthwhile investment in the cultural, social and economic well being of society. In Northern Ireland about £10 million per year was spent on incentives for conservation purposes. On this side of the Border it has been demonstrated repeatedly that moneys spent on good conservation projects have given a solid return in terms of tourist revenue. The town of Kinsale, recently declared Ireland's best kept town, is a classic example. There a number of beautifully restored 18th century buildings blend perfectly with a well maintained streetscape to give a distinctive style and ambience, making Kinsale a magnet for money spending visitors, Irish and foreign. All of this has been brought about because of the healthy interaction between an innovative county architect and an enlightened commercial community.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Howlin)

And good support from central government.

Miss Quill

Yes, and good support from central government. There are several examples of towns being enlightened enough to carry out such conservation projects. Their argument, unlike that made by the Minister of State, Deputy McManus this morning, is that we cannot afford not to do conservation work. It is very sad to see this Government lagging so far behind the thinking of our citizenry. We have a mature, well educated citizenry. We can afford better standards of environmental protection than this Government is prepared to advance. Even as we speak there is widespread destruction of so much of the rich heritage of our capital city.

Our biggest single problem, as outlined tonight by Deputy Sargent, is the silent insidious gutting of the interiors of buildings that goes on week after week unmonitored and undocumented for two reasons. First, we have no mandatory listing system; second, interiors of buildings are not included in the current optional listing system. We have proposed two ways in the Bill in which those loopholes could be rectified but the Bill will be voted down tonight.

Tomorrow, the following day and the day after, fine squares such as Merrion Square, Mountjoy Square and St. Stephen's Green will be insidiously destroyed. As we speak Nos. 82 and 83 Merrion Square are under threat and wholesale demolition is under way behind the facade of the birth place of Edward Carson. In the next few weeks we will see the demolition of the Light House Cinema and three other buildings in Abbey Street. The Adelphi Cinema will be replaced by yet another high rise carpark. I spoke last night, and Deputy Dempsey spoke this evening, about the tall gaunt house at 15 Ushers Island where James Joyce set his poignantly beautiful story "The Dead" which subsequently became a film. That building has now been thoroughly vandalised. That is happening daily. Blatant breaches of planning permission go unpunished. For example, Dublin corporation has a backlog of 1,200 enforcement complaints.

This Bill gives amended and extended powers to local government and were set in the context of what we believe to be imminent local government revitalisation. The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, had promised the same. Listening to the obstacles the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, put in place last night it is obvious there is no urgency about reforming local government.

Mr. Howlin

We will be challenging the Deputy very shortly. I hope she will be up to it.

Miss Quill

I hope the Minister is.

Miss Harney

We are waiting.

Miss Quill

That was one of the reasons this Bill was acceptable to a number of people. People took the Minister at his word and believed he would devolve the function and finance to enable local government to undertake the type of work I outlined in this conservation Bill.

I was delighted to hear the Minister say there may be a prospect of implementing some of the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Dempsey

We may even get these two reports.

Miss Quill

We might, but we will be waiting. We hope it will happen. The Government is emerging as a very promising administration.

Mr. Howlin

Thank you, Deputy.

Miss Quill

It is a very promising Government but nothing seems to come of its promises.

Miss Harney

Promises and reports.

Miss Quill

No action but promises and reports.

Mr. Howlin

I thought the Progressive Democrats read the financial pages.

Miss Quill

In our Bill we propose a carefully balanced mix of planning controls and tax relief type incentives. This prescription works elsewhere and it would work here, of that I have been assured, but it is clear to me from what has been said this evening by a Cabinet Minister that it will take three years before we have the inventory in place, before we can begin to frame this type of legislation.

Mr. M. Higgins

That is the professional work not the legislation.

Miss Quill

I am glad the Minister clarified that point. In the Bill we propose that every local authority should carry out an audit in its own area. That would certainly shorten the time span and we could use where necessary the expertise of the newly appointed heritage council.

In the light of what has been said by Deputies from all parties the Minister should change the decision announced in the House and not vote down this Bill. If Members defeat it they too are voting against conservation. If the Government decides to vote against the principle of conservation then let it be on the heads of its members. If this Bill had been proposed by a member of the Labour Party or the Democratic Left Party in Opposition and had been voted down by the then Fianna Fáil Party in Government, I can imagine the howls of derison from spokespersons from Labour or Democratic Left. They would say that members of Fianna Fáil were no more than speculators, a party of gombeen-men. We know who are the gombeen-men.

Mr. Howlin

That is very unfair.

Miss Quill

If the Government votes down this Bill this evening that is what will be said of it. This is good legislation and there is no alternative or prospect of one on the Government's list. This is the best available Bill.

I appeal to the Minister not to vote down this Bill but rather to support it and let it go to Select Committee where it can be improved and perfected. That can be done in the coming months and we can then give to the built heritage the kind of protection for which people have called.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 61.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Flood, Chris.
• Foley, Denis.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Hughes, Séamus.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Keaveney, Cecilia.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Michael.
• Morley, P.J.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Sargent, Trevor.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smith, Michael.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Woods, Michael.

Níl

• Ahearn, Theresa.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bhamjee, Moosajee.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bhreathnach, Niamh.
• Bree, Declan.
• Broughan, Tommy.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Costello, Joe.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Dukes, Alan M.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gallagher, Pat.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McDowell, Derek.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• McManus, Liz.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Nealon, Ted.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Penrose, William.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Donnell and Keogh; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.

Question declared lost.