Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 May 1999

Vol. 504 No. 3

Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historic Monuments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1998 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage

Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Miss de Valera)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate on Second Stage of the Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historical Monuments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The introduction of the Bill in the Dáil today represents an important step forward in meeting the commitments to the protection of our built heritage set out in the programme for Government, An Action Programme for the Millennium. Those commitments are to protect and enhance our built heritage and environment, give full legal protection to sites of artistic, heritage and historic interest, and introduce measures to promote the preservation of our historic dwellings.

As we put in place the individual mechanisms for achieving these ambitious aims, it is essential to keep in mind the importance of the agenda we have set. While considering the detail of each proposal we need to keep in mind the importance of our architectural heritage as a cornerstone for our understanding of the past. Every small town in Ireland has its own memories and tells its own story through the unique combination of urban life and culture, its structure, street pattern and the variety, type, style and craftsmanship of its buildings. In a period of such growth as we are currently experiencing in Ireland, it is important to proactively maintain, manage and develop the cultural and historical quality of our environment.

The importance of the built heritage, not only at local and national but also at European and international level, is clearly expressed in the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, the Granada convention, which Ireland ratified in 1997. The convention recognises that "the architectural heritage constitutes an irreplaceable expression of the richness and diversity of Europe's cultural heritage, bears inestimable witness to our past and is a common heritage of all Europeans". We owe it to ourselves and to those coming after us to take responsibility, both personally and collectively, for the shape, nature and quality of the environment in which we live and which we pass on to future generations.

While we have, unfortunately, on many occasions in the past not taken seriously enough the importance of conserving our built heritage we are, as a nation, changing our attitudes. In recent years there has been a notable shift at all levels towards a more positive and active approach to ensuring the future of our historic buildings, and I believe a recognition of the social and economic benefits of such conservation is developing in the nation's consciousness.

Against that background, an interdepartmental working group on strengthening the protection of the architectural heritage reported in 1996 on current policies and procedures and made recommendations as to the way forward. Drawing from the recommendations in that report and the subsequent public consultation process, I and my colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, brought forward to Government and obtained agreement on a package of legislative, financial and administrative measures for the protection of the architectural heritage which we announced in May of last year.

The legislative measures involved the enactment of a Bill to place the national inventory of architectural heritage on a statutory basis. This is the Bill before the House today. The national inventory of architectural heritage, a systematic recording of the architectural heritage of the State, was commenced in 1990 on a non-statutory basis, with limited resources and no rights of access to property for the purposes of recording, for example, interiors of buildings. In addition, a new planning Bill to give comprehensive protection to buildings of architectural, artistic and historic importance was introduced in the Seanad in December of last year by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.

The new planning Bill will strengthen existing local authority policies and procedures for conserving the architectural heritage. There will be a clear obligation on each planning authority to establish and maintain a record of protected structures as part of its development plan; a co-ordinated approach to this new system will be ensured through the provision of national guidance issued by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in consultation with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Local authorities will be required to have regard to such guidance in the establishment of the record of protected structures.

In addition, local authorities will be obliged to have regard to individual structures recommended for protection by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. The Deputies will note the close co-operation which the new protective regime entails between the two Departments. The Bill is at the centre of this co-operative approach.

The effective implementation of these new measures requires a knowledge and understanding of our built environment. If we do not know and understand what we have, we are not in a position to decide what to protect and how we should protect it. An inventory is a basic and essential management tool for any resource which facilitates the formulation and implementation of policy. Therefore, a systematic programme of identification, classification and evaluation of the architectural heritage is essential to making informed judgments and establishing a planned programme of preservation using a combination of legislative safeguards and financial incentives. This Bill will place the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage on a statutory basis and will provide this systematic recording nationally.

The new protection measures also include the establishment of a new grant-aid scheme for approved conservation works to protected structures. This scheme, for which the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has primary responsibility, will commence in 1999, be administered by the local authorities, have funding of approximately £4 million per annum, and will be operated in accordance with national criteria and standards drawn up by an advisory group made up of representatives of my Department, the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Heritage Council. Details of the scheme are currently being finalised and will be announced shortly.

The full package of measures for the protection of the architectural heritage, of which the Bill is a key element, also provides for annual funding of £800,000 to my Department to ensure that a full record of the architectural heritage, the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage, is completed within 12 years, to resource the key role which the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands will perform in recommending buildings to planning authorities for protection, and in providing advice to local authorities on development proposals affecting protected buildings. An accelerated interim inven tory of each county will be completed as a priority, pending completion of the full inventory.

The main features of the Bill are: the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage, a systematic recording of the architectural heritage of the State will be placed on a statutory basis; legal rights of access to buildings by duly authorised officers will be established for the purpose of preparing the inventory; local authorities serving a dangerous building notice on a building entered in the Register of Historic Monuments must notify the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands of the issue of the notice; and local authorities carrying out work on a dangerous building which is a registered historic monument must, in so far as possible, preserve the building, having regard to public safety requirements.

As I stated previously, the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage will identify those buildings which the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands will recommend to local authorities for protection under the new planning legislation. A new regime for the protection of the architectural heritage must have at its core a comprehensive and detailed record of the stock of buildings which constitute the architectural heritage of the State. The creation of this record must be made a priority. As we move into the new millennium we must ensure that we are in a position to conserve our architecture for future generations by providing the essential database required for the planned management and protection of our architectural heritage. It is vital that a full and detailed record of our national architectural heritage is available to those involved in the protection of that heritage for this and future generations.

This Bill is a vital element in the fulfilment of the commitment in the programme for Government to the protection of our architectural heritage. It will also ensure that we meet our commitment to identify properties for protection under the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, the Granada convention, which Ireland ratified in January 1997.

I will now deal with the main provisions of the Bill. Section 1 is the interpretation provision. It includes a definition of "architectural heritage" as meaning structures and buildings, together with their settings, grounds, fixtures and fittings, groups of such structures and buildings, and sites, which are of architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific or technical interest. This definition is similar to that in the Granada convention.

Section 2 provides for the establishment and maintenance of the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and for the making available and publication by the Minister of information from the inventory.

Section 2(1) provides that the Minister shall cause to be established and maintained an inven tory to be known as the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. Section 2(2) provides that the Minister may do any or all of the following: (a) determine the form and content of the inventory; (b) designate for the purposes of the inventory categories of architectural heritage; (c) cause the designated category or categories to which each entry in the inventory belongs to be specified in the inventory; and (d) cause an entry in the inventory to be amended or deleted.

Section 3(3) provides that the Minister may: (a) make information contained in the inventory available to a planning authority but solely for the purpose of the exercise by the authority of its statutory functions, including planning and development, relating to architectural heritage; and (b) publish information from the inventory and in so doing shall have regard to the security, privacy and safety of property and persons affected.

The Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998, deals with the system of protected structures, and provides that the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands may recommend specific structures for inclusion by planning authorities in their records of protected structures. These recommendations will be based on the data in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage.

Section 3 provides for the appointment by the Minister, or by an authorised officer of the Minister, of authorised officers and for the powers and functions of such officers. Section 3(1) provides that the Minister, or an officer of the Minister authorised by him or her in that behalf, may, in writing, appoint persons as authorised officers for the purposes of this section.

Section 3(2) provides that every person appointed under subsection (1) shall, on appointment, be provided by the Minister or the appointing officer, as the case may be, with a certificate of appointment. Section 3(3) provides that, when exercising a function conferred by this section, an authorised officer shall, if requested by any person affected, inform such person of the nature of the function being exercised and produce for inspection that officer's certificate of appointment.

Section 3(4) provides that, subject to subsection (5), an authorised officer may do any or all of the following: (a) at all reasonable times enter any premises for the purposes of the establishment and maintenance of the inventory; (b) in any premises entered under this section do all things necessary for or incidental to those purposes; (c) require any occupier of the premises to give the authorised officer such assistance as he or she may reasonably require for those purposes.

Section 3(5) to 3(8) restrict the right of access of authorised officers in respect of private dwellings by providing that such access shall be subject to the consent of the occupier or in accordance with a warrant issued by the District Court pursuant to an application under this section. They also provide that an authorised officer shall, in the case of a private dwelling, inform the occupier of the nature of his or her functions and of the reasons for entry and afford the occupier the opportunity to give reasons entry should be refused.

Section 4 makes it an offence, subject to a fine not exceeding £1,500 on summary conviction, to obstruct or interfere with an authorised officer carrying out his functions under section 3, or to fail to assist an authorised officer without reasonable excuse. Proceedings in respect of a summary offence under this section may be brought and prosecuted by the Minister.

Section 5 places obligations on sanitary authorities in respect of registered historic monuments subject to dangerous building notices, and in respect of works on such monuments. The obligations are consultative in nature given the importance that must, of course, be attached to the safety of people and property even when the danger arises from a registered historic monument.

Subsection (1) is the interpretation provision and provides inter alia that for the purposes of the section “monument” means any historic monument entered in the register of historic monuments under section 5 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987. Subsection (2) provides that as soon as practicable after serving or proposing to serve a dangerous building notice under section 3 (1) of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1964, in respect of a monument, a sanitary authority shall inform the Minister of the particulars of the notice.

Subsection (3) provides that a sanitary authority which under section 3 (2) of the 1964 Act carries out works on a monument shall as far as possible preserve the monument in as much as its preservation is not likely to cause a danger to any person or property. Subsection (4) provides that as soon as practicable after carrying out works under section 3 (2) of the 1964 Act on a monument, a sanitary authority shall inform the Minister of the works which have been carried out.

In conclusion I wish to again stress the importance of this short Bill in the context of the Government's package of measures for the protection of the architectural heritage. As I have stated, it is vital that a full and detailed record of our architectural heritage is available to those involved in the protection of that heritage for this and future generations. The National lnventory of Architectural Heritage, which will be given a statutory basis under the present Bill and the carrying out of which will be accelerated over the coming years, will provide that detailed record.

I commend this Bill to the House and I look forward to the support of Deputies for its passage through this House.

Mr. Kenny

I propose to share my time with Deputy Deenihan.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGrath): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kenny

This legislation is timely. It is a small but important Bill which is long overdue and it will have the support of this side of the House. I note the Minister's speech was the same as the one she gave in the Seanad when she introduced the Bill, except for a few minor changes.

Miss de Valera

It is the same Bill.

Mr. Kenny

I know but many comments were made in the Seanad when she introduced the Bill. Perhaps she could have changed her speech a little more. When one travels around this country, the number of different kinds of buildings of historic, architectural and artistic importance one passes is amazing. The Minister is right that in every town and village there are places which mean something to people. They are part of our roots and reflect our personality. It is right that these should be listed and that people should be aware of them. I support the signing of the Granada Convention and its implementation on a statutory basis in this Bill.

When I was pressurised by ministerial business I had the privilege of travelling to various functions by helicopter. I travelled over parts of the country through which one would not normally drive. I saw a huge number of big old houses, many in ruins but others still occupied. I do not know who lives in them and their history in many cases is long and infamous. It is important to have these buildings listed.

The introduction of legislation such as this receives a general welcome from all the various bodies and organisations associated with this kind of activity because they see it is worthwhile. However, the real demonstration of how serious one is is to provide the resources to implement it. I support the grant aid scheme of £4 million in 1999. This is worthwhile and will have a huge take-up. One could spend £500,000 or £600,000 repairing roofs, stonework, steps, etc., of houses which are 200 or 300 years old.

Is there a limit on the grant which can be acquired? What other conditions are attached? Does the building have to examined by an architectural historian or conservation officer? Buildings less than 100 years old might be socially or technically important and may have been burned down or become dilapidated. If a community group or conservation organisation wishes to restore it, what criteria apply?

As I said in the earlier debate on transport, too many people think we have arrived at a point where we are a developed country because of the explosion in the economy and the amount of building which is taking place. We are a long way from that. If one compares our standards with Germany and other developed countries in Europe, we still have a long way to go. There is a need for Ireland to be able to draw down funds from particular EU programmes. This is one such area.

The explosion of planning applications can be seen in every provincial paper. While there used to be half a dozen planning applications for bungalows and houses, there are now columns of applications for 50 or 100 houses or changes in house type. If this continues, and I hope it will, for another 12 years to 2010 and 2011, we could have had five Governments by then given the uncertainty of these matters. The planning process may well have destroyed the settings, grounds and in some cases, the buildings referred to in the proposed national inventory list.

I am not sure of the mechanics of this. For example, a local authority or the Department says building X in County Kilkenny is to be examined for listing in terms of its international, regional or local importance. I understand there are three stages involved. One person fills out a form which complies with various international standards and deals with location, size, number of rooms, etc. That is then checked by someone else. If there is a disagreement between these two people an adjudicator makes a decision in order to keep the information levels up to a national standard. It is right and proper that there is a national standard of information relevant to all these matters. However, I do not understand, if this has been collected on a non-statutory basis, admittedly with very limited resources, for the past nine years, how it is going to take another 12 to complete it. This is a relatively small island, although there are thousands of buildings. Providing the resources to enable this to happen would be a demonstration of how effective this legislation will be and how the Minister can make her mark on the creation of this inventory.

The Minister said in reply to a recent question by her esteemed constituency colleague, Deputy Donal Carey, that conservation officers, as distinct from architectural historians, would need to be appointed to some individual local authorities but they could be shared in some cases. That may well be so, depending on the size of the local authority or the number of buildings. However, universities and other third level institutions which run programmes related to arts, heritage and culture should be able to supply personnel to carry out the initial checks on buildings that are potentially listable under the national inventory, which would greatly speed up the process.

The Minister is carrying out an interim inventory at the moment, which she says is to be expedited. What does that mean in terms of resources for the Department and local authorities? As I understand it, one person in the Department is dealing with this, with the assistance of secretarial staff and field assistants. If the interim inventory is to be expedited and prioritised, what extra personnel are to be appointed? Has any county completed collection on a non-statutory basis in the past nine years? Will the Minister report at the end of Second Stage, or supply the information to us whenever it is available, on the situation in each local authority area? The chief architect in my own local authority area told me there is a short list of protected buildings, which does not include all the buildings that should be protected. What extra resources, in terms of personnel, are being supplied by the Department for the Minister to expedite the interim inventory list? How is it proposed that that be done through each local authority?

How has the 12 year schedule been determined? In 12 years' time – 2011 – this country will have changed radically. The number of cranes on the horizon of Dublin and many other towns and cities may continue to increase. The explanatory memorandum refers to structures and buildings, together with their settings, grounds, fixtures and fittings, groups of such structures and buildings and sites. Groups of new houses of different types of architecture, with different colours, Spanish arches, columns, bricks and so on, are often built up against very old buildings and the two styles completely contrast. If that continues, this element of the Bill will not be able to be implemented. I would like to tease out how it was determined that this will take 12 years. Is it based on the information collected in a non-statutory way to date? Have there been meetings with the local authorities?

I am glad the Minister has included in the Bill that her Department must be notified about planning applications for dangerous buildings. We have all witnessed cases where contractors or builders acquire large buildings, are refused or decide not to apply for planning permission and let the buildings become run down, with the roofs removed and the windows smashed. The buildings then become unstable and dangerous and notice is served to have them demolished. That has been a deliberate policy in some cases, much to the detriment of the work the Minister is trying to do in this Bill. It is important that local authorities are required to notify the Department of proposals in this regard.

I am interested in the interiors of many of these buildings. When one passes by on the roadside one sees the external features of buildings, which may be old, grey, beaten down and warped. The owners of these buildings may apply for a grant under the scheme, which may be approved. What powers do the personnel, to be appointed under the Bill, have to enter a 300 year old house and take photographs of the plasterwork, the door lintels and other features? The owner may have radically changed the interior of the house, with a different colour scheme and so on, in the past 20 years without requiring planning permission. A house could be in pristine condition, from an architectural and historic point of view, and an officer could get the agreement of the owner to look at the house, note the features and so on. The house could then be sold and the new owner could decide to change it completely by putting in modern facilities, such as water and heating, knocking down some of the internal walls to make the rooms bigger and so on. Are powers in that regard given under the Bill to conservation officers or architectural historians who will carry out this work?

The listing of a building brings with it benefits but it also brings with it disadvantages. If building X is listed on the inventory, people looking for their genealogical roots or for information about their place of ancestry may decide to visit it. That could result in many people arriving at a building listed on the inventory, although it might be a private building which is not publicly accessible. That could be a disadvantage. What is the position in that regard, although owners obviously have a right to refuse access? What does it mean to list a building? That could cause difficulty, depending on the diplomacy of the personnel who call for the purposes of the inventory.

The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, put through a planning Bill to give protection to architecturally important buildings. It is essential that local authorities, which are referred to in the original Act as "sanitary authorities", understand how important this is. Development is leading planning in so many local authorities that it has surpassed the remit and responsibility of councillors. While councillors, the elected representatives of the people, may have particularly strong views for or against a development, the executive authority of the local authority and the planning officer can overrule their wishes in many cases. It then goes to An Bord Pleanála, if that is the case. There is a need for parallel co-ordination so that the local authority fully appreciates, in terms of its planning for future development, the importance of the consequences of this Bill and the setting up of the inventory.

When one drives through Ballsbridge one can see the RDS buildings, the new hotel and the development by Bewleys. Further down the road, on its right hand side, one can see the architectural wonder of the British Embassy which replaced the old original building. I am not an architect and I am not qualified to speak authoritatively on streetscapes and so forth, but that building looks completely out of place.

Miss de Valera

I agree.

Mr. Kenny

It was a disgraceful planning decision. That is not to say the British Government is not entitled to an embassy, but the current structure is appalling and does not complement the fine buildings on that road and throughout the locality. If this legislation had been in force when that building was contemplated, it would not have been built. The local authority would more than likely have decided the original buildings were of architectural importance and, while development could have taken place, it would not have permitted the current structure.

The information is to be compiled in each local authority area. If owners of listed buildings wish to extend the buildings, who will give authoris ation for that adjustment? Will it be the planning office in the local authority or the officer who listed the building in the national inventory? Let us say a building is listed as one of international importance and for whatever reason its owners decide to extend or change it. Is that still strictly a matter for the planning authority? Must it take cognisance of the category of listing determined in the case of that building? What legal restrictions on that type of development can be enforced under this legislation?

The proposal for a 12 year period should be reduced to about five years. Is it intended that this period should operate on a 26 county basis? Is it envisaged that each county will do the work at the same time or that the inventory will be compiled progressively by moving through the country, county by county or province by province?

It is important that qualified personnel are available to local authorities to carry out this work properly. Students from third level institutions could be utilised to analyse the information so it can be categorised correctly. Is it proposed to hold examinations and interviews for qualified personnel for the local authorities? When can one expect these qualified personnel to be put in place in individual local authority areas or are they to be shared by a number of local authorities? Is there a public examination for these positions? Are there enough qualified personnel to do this work? Does the Minister expect to secure the resources to fund that? Will the resources come from the Department of the Environment and Local Government or from the Minister's Vote? Has a case been made to the Department of Finance to provide for it?

I support the legislation, but it is critical that the Minister is given the resources and facilities to ensure it is implemented in the shortest time and most effective manner possible. This country is developing at a ferocious rate and many of these buildings could fall prey to the bulldozers, as happened on many other occasions.

I read the Official Report of the debate on this legislation in the Seanad, in which references were made to a number of successful operations. I opened King House in Boyle when I was Minister. It is a first class concept. There are also indications that applications will be lodged for Moore Hall, the home of the first president of Connacht on the shores of Lough Carra. These are worthy but costly operations.

We can tease out the details of the legislation on Committee Stage, but I hope the Minister can deal with the general questions I raised when she replies to this debate.

Mr. Deenihan

I would have preferred more time to discuss this subject because I have a great interest in it. However, I thank Deputy Kenny for sharing his time.

I compliment the Minister, yet again, on her initiative. It is most important. My maiden speech in the Dáil in 1987 was on the National Monu ments Bill. I pointed out then that we were destroying our archaeological heritage by moving earthworks, forts, field formations and so forth. I said that unless the provisions of the Bill were enforced, this destruction would continue. Unfortunately, it has. I can think of many places from which old earthen forts have disappeared. I even witnessed damage and interference to the ruins of castles and other structures.

There are certain national monuments which cannot be touched and other monuments which are listed and whose owners must give two months' notice of works being carried out on them. However, that notice requirement is not being complied with in many cases. Local authorities do not have sufficient personnel to enforce the provision. As a result, some of our archaeological heritage is being lost. I hope that will not happen in the case of this legislation. I appeal to the Minister to ensure the necessary finance is made available to appoint enough conservation officers to implement the provisions of this Bill.

We continue to destroy some of our most precious and valuable built heritage. It is difficult to know what goes on inside a building. In cases where urgent repairs are required – this problem will arise in the context of this legislation – people are not prepared to go to the local authority and seek permission to carry out the repairs. There might be a serious leak in a house or a 200 or 300 year old ceiling might have collapsed. This is the type of problem the Minister will encounter. Rather than take the official route, people will opt to do the job immediately. In many cases, they will be advised to do that. Consequently, we are continuously losing important facades of buildings, some of which might be up to 300 years old, and unique plasterwork carried out by the great artisans of 100 years ago. I have seen examples of this. We have also lost good and intricate ceiling work which was an integral part of the old great houses in Ireland. We lost much of our built heritage during the War of Independence. Unfortunately, the combatants did not adopt the Lenin approach. After the revolution in Russia, Lenin's supporters advised him to destroy everything that dated from before the revolution. He refused saying "what is theirs today is ours tomorrow". Both sides in the War of Independence, despite their good intentions, destroyed a huge amount of our built heritage. That heritage would have been important for our tourism industry. We have lost a lot and we continue to lose it. I hope this legislation will arrest that trend. Our built heritage reflects our sophistication as a nation and shows how we respect what is around us. We have been lacking in such sophistication because much of our architectural or built heritage was passed on to us from a colonial power so we did not respect it. We have been guilty of much unwanted destruction and I hope this will change.

Numerous buildings throughout the country would be lost to our communities only for the work done by FÁS. FÁS has carried out high quality work in preserving numerous buildings. People who work in FÁS agree that it is important that such work is done under proper supervision, although the people who advise them are not always available. I hope the conservation officers will provide the necessary guidance, information, technical skills and backup to ensure that the work involved in restoring old buildings, ceilings or plasterwork is done properly.

The Heritage Council launched the buildings at risk survey in August 1998 and it received approximately 280 completed forms. Its budget in 1998 was £500,000, but that did not meet its needs. I ask the Minister to ensure that the grant for the project is substantially increased. Last year the Heritage Council could not use all the £500,000 because it could not get builders to do the work. I ask the Minister to re-examine the system which does not allow unspent money to be carried over.

The Minister is allocating £3.9 million to local government to repair listed buildings. How will that be allocated and how much will be given to each local authority?

In the village of Finuge, where I come from, there is a unique thatched cottage which has been there for approximately 300 years. Despite the fact that I contacted the appropriate authorities about it, the mechanisms were not in place to do anything about it. As the building was in danger of being lost to the community, a local group was formed and we hope to purchase it in the near future. I hope this Bill ensures neglect similar to this does not happen again. It is one of few thatched cottages in the country. I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to preserving these thatched cottages which are part of our heritage.

I thank the Minister for coming to Kerry to launch the film commission. A film is already being made because of her visit.

Mr. O'Shea

Fáiltím roimh an Bille. Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go mbéadh sé seo críochnaithe agus chomh hiomlán agus is féidir é chomh luath agus is féidir é. Ní amháin sin ach caithfidh an Rialtas go leor airgid a chur ar fáil chun déileáil le séadchomharthaí stairiúla atá i gcontúirt nó a bhfuil sé tábhachtach oibreacha práinneacha a chur i gcrích. Cabhróidh an Lucht Oibre leis an Aire an Bille seo a chur tríd an Dáil chomh luath agus is féidir.

I compliment the Minister for introducing this important Bill. The Labour Party will assist in its speedy passage through the House. My comments will be based on my experience and on representations I received from an individual about which I wrote to the Minister. I will not present my views but the views of the person involved which should be aired.

It is important that access will be available to the interiors of buildings under this Bill. I recall some years ago somebody informing me of the removal of ornamental fireplaces in an important historical house in my constituency which had not been used as a residence for some time. I immediately contacted the county planning officer who was committed to our heritage. However, I discovered that the local authority did not have the power to intervene. I do not know where those fireplaces are now, but they are a great loss to the area. The house was also vandalised. Its magnificent timber window frames, which would cost a great deal of money to replace, disappeared.

An article sent to me recently by an individual indicated that 30 important archaeological sites are lost in County Kerry each year. Some years ago a friend was excavating at the back of his house and he dug up a bronze age grave. It was a little chamber which measured two feet by one foot by one foot and there was an urn inside. I immediately informed the Keeper of Irish Antiquities at the National Museum of Ireland who came to see it. He dated it somewhere between 1600 and 2000 BC. He said it was usual for 16 bronze age graves to be built together. My friend then remembered that when he was cutting out the foundations of his house he noticed a slab of stone which could possibly have been another bronze age grave. The keeper believed it could be excavated and retrieved at a later stage.

I carried out some inquiries in the area and discovered that much of the soil was removed in the early 1960s when the new road was being built. One of the local people remembered that his children found bones during the excavation. I was told there were two phases with the bronze age graves. Initially the bodies were allowed to rot and the bones put into the chamber. Subsequently the bodies were cremated and the urn, retrieved in the area I speak of, would have contained ashes and a trace of oats. Even at that stage they had an idea of the afterlife and food for the journey. The reason I make these points is the likelihood that there could be up to a dozen other chambers, small graves, in the area. How does the State protect them? Obviously the State cannot excavate in all these areas. That that information is available should mean that many of these very important historical remains will be protected and secured in the fullness of time.

I had discussions with Lord Hartington in Lismore Castle a few years ago. Lismore Castle is a very important historical building in County Waterford. Robert Boyle, the father of modern chemistry, was born there. The family is anxious to keep the building as a residence. There is a development plan with which the family would co-operate in terms of out-houses and other parts of the complex being developed as an area for a tourism focus. All the consultants who have looked at west Waterford say Lismore Castle should be developed as the hub to attract other tourism. Apart from the tourism aspect there is the conservation and refurbishment of the building which is an important part of the heritage in my area. What can be done in cases such as this? For example, can tax breaks be introduced? I welcome the interdepartmental approach because it ensures the taxpayer gets the best deal at the end of the day. A combination of tax breaks and grants would be important in the development of areas such as this. The £4 million available to local authorities is welcome but I do not think the Minister in her contribution here or in the Seanad considered it was enough. I wish her well in her efforts to have the allocation increased dramatically given that we have an overview of our heritage and can identify priorities and that there is a systematic and structured approach to this area.

Has the Minister had discussions with her colleague the Minister for Finance on the matter of assisting owners of historical buildings to bring them up to an attractive standard? There may be ways of clawing back in the event of tourist income accruing. By using the imagination and being creative we can develop a roll-over whereby money invested will come back again. At the end of the day citizens, who are our first concern in the matter of heritage, will benefit.

Another historical monument in my area is the metal man in Tramore. For many years there has been a problem of access to the metal man. There is an old piseog that if a girl hops all the way around the middle pillar she will be married within 12 months. All these little things are part of our culture and how people look at the world. I realise the whole business of access is not easy. There is also the question of balancing various interests. Given that there are no easy solutions we have to work hard to move this agenda forward.

In respect of monuments in private ownership the Minister stated:

These provisions present a reasonable balance between the rights of occupiers of private dwellings and the importance of identifying those elements of the architectural heritage of the State for protection.

I support the idea of balance. I would ask the Minister to respond to some of the points raised in a letter I received. I do not necessarily agree with all of them but they should be given an airing and should be looked at in the overall context. The letter reads:

If passed into law it [the Bill] would provide for intrusive invasion into private property of citizens of this State and provide for a great encroachment into the right to privacy of the citizen, a privacy which, as you know, requires that before entry is made into private property the consent of the property owner is necessary. In the Bill there is not a reference to, much less a commitment to, public liability or responsibility for those who would be coming onto private property and this, in turn, would make the already unacceptable bad liability situation even worse for the property holder. Indemnity from claim by trespassers is required to protect the property holding from trespassing people and this is not the case at the moment.

The ever-increasing cost of public liability insurance cover would soar even further. It would be difficult to blame the insurance companies for doing so. Even when the gardaí apply for a warrant to enter a private household they are required to satisfy a court that they have reason to believe or suspect that some law has been breached or some crime committed. No such requirement is included in section 3 of the Bill.

The Bill states that the inventory will be made of private property and that the Minister may publish information from the inventory but to whom? Will it be made available to other State bodies, hotels, guesthouses, tourist organisations etc. none of whom are prepared to take public liability or responsibility for their guests or for those whom they invite or attract on to private property? I believe that those who appoint, invite or attract people to come onto private property should be held accountable for the consequences of doing so.

In her contribution the Minister mentioned publication and publishing. In publishing information from the inventory one shall have regard to the security, privacy and safety of property and persons affected. These are the questions that need to be addressed. In respect of owners' liability legislation we are moving into another Department's area of responsibility. If a particular building is given a great deal of notice in the inventory it could result in many people wishing to visit it. Does my correspondent have a point that his exposure to public liability will increase and he will have to pay a higher premium in the future? These are rhetorical questions but the issue of access is related. I support the Bill but we must look further forward and consider where the legislation is leading. The maximum level of access to our heritage should be afforded to citizens. However, at the same time, the issue of the security of buildings arises. If particular buildings or their grounds have a large throughput, the opportunity is created for people who are so disposed to steal from the building. I will not deal with the provisions of the occupier's liability legislation, but I ask the Minister to give comfort to my correspondent where possible.

Earlier I raised the potential for excavation, such as the bronze age graves I mentioned, but cases can also arise in urban areas. For example, the Theatre Royal in Waterford was recently refurbished and a nice job was done but, in the course of the work, remnants of the old city walls were discovered. Ultimately, it will probably cost more money to look after the old city walls than it cost to refurbish the theatre. There may not be certain knowledge in urban areas but old records could indicate certain historical remains which would be important in terms of excavation. In the context of the inventory, is it intended to identify potential areas of importance? It may not be certain that an area contains important historical remains, but records and the balance of judgment might suggest the location of remains which would be worth exposing and putting on display.

This is not an easy matter. Such issues arose in Waterford city previously in the context of an inner city shopping development where the site was acquired by the city council but some important discoveries were made. The Bill contains a definition of architectural heritage and also a definition of site, which means an area which is partially built upon and is sufficiently distinctive or homogenous to be topographically definable. Similar to the area I described in relation to the bronze age graves, my concern is what exactly the Bill will do in terms of recording that type of area which is likely to be important in the context of discoveries in the future.

This also applies in urban areas where levels develop over time. The dumping process in cities causes some buildings to be covered over. Building is carried out on top of them and some of the most important artefacts and historical remains can be contained in such areas. I ask the Minister to cover this aspect in her reply to the debate.

Deputy Kenny raised the issue of how the 12 year time frame was developed and on what it is based. I omitted to mention earlier cases where urgent action is required in relation to important historical or architectural remains. There does not appear to be either a system or the resources to react to such cases. I welcome the greater awareness at all levels in relation to our heritage. For example, Canon Power in his book, Logainmneacha na nDéise, describes in detail an oratory in Kilbride. This led me to believe that it was in a good state of preservation at that stage but, apparently in the late 1940s, the landowner decided to demolish the little oratory, which was near a non-descript 18th century ruin, to provide trunking for a driveway. I hope such outrageous cases are in the past. Another case involved the remains of the foundations of one of the early Christian churches. I understand the land was leased and the remains were ploughed and lost forever.

These events happen but other remains – I discussed an example with the Minister in the House last week – could deteriorate rapidly if they do not receive urgent attention and if they are not secured. When they are open to vandalism, all types of articles are removed. For example, the window frames of a house were removed and, I suspect, used for firewood. I do not know what other use could have been made of them. The issue of the ability to respond to real emergencies and to urgent cases to ensure an historical or architecturally important part of our heritage is secured must be addressed. If action is not taken in such cases, it will not be possible to do anything about them later.

The Minister mentioned the advisory committee which will lay down the guidelines for the disbursement of the £4 million. The committee will comprise representatives of the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and the Heritage Council. In the context of the input of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, the Minister should ensure that a contingency element is included for local authority areas. This would mean that in genuine cases, where there is a real danger to a particularly important part of our heritage, the local authority would be in a position to respond quickly.

Grants are available, but there should a scheme similar to that in the USA where tax breaks are available. Packages are available to private citizens or groups. It could be said that a tax break is income foregone, but this type of measure would bring much more money into the sector. It would help to speed up the process of conservation and refurbishment and ensure better presentation generally.

There are sensitive areas on the margins that have to be dealt with but, as the Minister outlined in her letter, it is a question of balance, which is not easily achieved.

I compliment the Minister on the Bill and wish her well in its implementation and I look forward to her response at the end of the Second Stage debate.

Mr. M. Kitt

I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historic Monuments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1998, which follows on from the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998, introduced by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey.

The Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill refers to ensuring the protection and survival into the future of our built heritage and this Bill implements it. For the first time there is a commitment to give full legal protection to sites of artistic, heritage and historic interest and there are measures to promote the preservation of our heritage dwellings. I hope that adequate resources will be provided for financial assistance and for expertise on conservation. I was delighted to hear both Ministers refer to the allocation of resources and the figure of £4 million. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, referred to the allocation of £300,000 per annum to assist local authorities in employing conservation expertise and the Minister, Deputy de Valera, refers to annual funding of £800,000 to ensure there a full record of architectural heritage is carried out within 12 years.

The local authorities hope to employ between 15 and 20 conservation officers to carry out the functions under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998. I hope there will be consistency in regard to the built environment and that we will see the end of unseemly rows. Guidelines have been drawn up by Duchas, the heritage body under the auspices of the Department of the Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in consultation with the Department of the Environment and Local Government. As there is co-operation between the two Departments, there should be a meeting of minds on what is a building of significance.

The Minister may recall when we were lobbying for the draining of the River Suck and a marina for the town of Ballinasloe, there was a major row about an old mill. The archaeologists thought the mill should be knocked but there was local opposition to that. I am convinced the right decision was taken, the mill was knocked, the river was drained and a marina was built closer to the town. I am digressing a little but I think it is important that marinas are located as near as possible to a town.

An additional cost for community employment schemes in supervising work on heritage buildings, monuments and graveyards is that archaeologists have to be employed at a cost of £30 per hour and should a report be required it will cost up to £700. On some occasions the local authority may be able to contribute to the cost but this will vary from area to area. This is a prohibitive cost for local groups raising money to restore a building. There should be a consistent policy on this matter.

Urban renewal schemes have benefited the cities but in recent times the scheme has been extended and Ballinalsoe and part of Tuam have been included and the old buildings in these towns will benefit. The Department of the Environment and Local Government will introduce a scheme to improve the streetscape. Will grants be provided by the Department to carry out this work? The Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, has referred to the environmental partnership scheme for local and national projects which will encompass conservation measures as well as recycling and litter control.

The schemes are in place but I hope we will have funding for them. The local authorities would like to know before 1 August what the schemes for the villages and smaller towns will involve. The upper Shannon – the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has an interest in this – comes under the rural renewal scheme and I hope to get further details on it.

The European Union has a role in the protection of our heritage. The EU is investigating the commercial aspects of the urban and rural renewal schemes. It has clearly stated there is funding for the restoration of church buildings. The town clock in St. John's Church, Ballinasloe, has just been restored at a cost of £10,000. Many churches are not used and are in danger of falling down if something is not done about them. Church of Ireland members have said that if these churches are not restored they will be knocked, which would be a pity. My local authority colleagues tell me there is a fund for church restoration and it should be used. In my village, Castleblakeney, the Leader programme has provided a grant of 70 per cent of the cost of restoring a church, which is typical of what can be done to preserve buildings. Many churches have been turned into interpretative centres, museums, libraries or community centres in villages which previously had none, and these are good ways to use such buildings. It is a welcome development.

Each county has a national monuments committee, which has made lists of buildings. The late Martin Joyce was a member of one such committee. He was responsible for preserving the Aughrim collection, relating to the battle, and was the driving force behind the Aughrim interpretative centre, opened some years ago by the former President, Mrs. Mary Robinson. We are lucky that we had people like Martin Joyce who gave such time, effort and energy to preserve historic relics.

Tourism boards have an important role in regard to these buildings. Buildings such as the Aughrim site, Kilconnell Abbey, Clontuskert Abbey and Clonfert Abbey, founded by St. Brendan, are tourist attractions and European visitors, particularly from Germany and Austria, are keen to see these historic parts of Galway and Ireland.

Deputy O'Shea referred to the importance of access to these sites. The interpretative centre in Aughrim has all the information about Aughrim but many people want to see the battle site and people are disappointed when they cannot do so. The tourism board has promoted these buildings and provided good signposts. I hope it can co-operate with local authorities on this work in the future. Will the board continue erecting signs for buildings, battle sites and monuments or, in light of the legislation introduced by the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, will it be transferred to local authorities?

The relationship between the owner or occupier of a protected structure and the local authority is important. In many cases signs have been taken down and money has been spent replacing them. I hope the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has agreed to this measure which I welcome.

Another possible source of confrontation is the way a building is restored. Removing ivy from buildings, for instance, is a special art. One must employ an archaeologist and consider the type of stone involved, it is not simply a matter of setting up a FÁS scheme. Lessons can be learned from the mistakes made. The co-operation of the owner is crucial. Buildings on land are usually owned by farmers and most of them are caring people. It may be necessary to fence off an area or move livestock. All these areas must be considered in detail.

When introducing his Bill the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, spoke of the need for planning permission not only for the building but for the curtilage, and such permission should be obtained in good time. Many older buildings were constructed without planning permission but were built in a tasteful way. The buildings in question are often focal points in towns and villages. The Derelict Sites Act, 1990, imposed levies on people who did not comply with the law. The County Galway national monuments advisory committee has done great work in identifying buildings which need attention.

I welcome the £4 million in grant aid for buildings, mentioned by the Minister. Perhaps she could give more detail about how it will be made available because there is great need for it. Everyone is concerned about our heritage and the money should be provided as quickly as possible to the communities who require it.

Mr. D. Carey

I wish to share my time with Deputy Perry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. D. Carey

I join other Members in commending the Minister on bringing forward this Bill, which is the result of a substantial interdepartmental study concluded in 1996 entitled Strengthening the Protection of the Architectural Heritage, which made a substantial analysis of this area. The study also demonstrates the far-sightedness of the former Minister, Deputy Michael Higgins. The current Minister has been willing to take on board its 64 recommendations. By and large the Bill is based on the thoughts of the interdepartmental committee. The report dealt with the listing of buildings, the national inventory of architecture, financial and tax incentives, grant aid, training, education, advisory services, etc., and other Members have touched on these matters.

From my experience in office, I know there is still a need to draw together the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Department of Finance. Most Deputies favour the fast route, they feel that the 12 year period in the Bill is too long. In my view the interdepartmental group studying this matter would have to remain in place on a continuous basis. Dúchas is not really designed to facilitate this, but perhaps a subcommittee could be established to expedite matters in respect of our architectural heritage.

There is an economic consideration of which account must be taken. Studies on tourism reveal that our built environment is one of the reasons tourists visit Ireland. People travel to this country to see old and listed buildings; therefore, the value of our architectural heritage is high. If this area of tourism is to be developed further, increased investment will be required. Previous speakers referred to the £5 million allocation recommended by the committee in 1996, but since then the coffers of the Department of Finance have been awash with money. In order to fully develop and preserve our architectural heritage, a greater investment and commitment must be made.

In its recommendations, the committee sought to have grant aid allocations to be funded, wholly or partly, from national lottery funding. In 1996, people making modest applications for grant aid did not realise the Minister for Finance would have a substantial surplus at his disposal in 1999. In my opinion, part of that surplus should be used for capital investment in projects of this nature.

As the Minister is aware, Ennis Abbey is visited by large numbers of tourists each year. It is currently the subject of controversy because Dúchas does not have adequate resources and is slow to respond to difficulties involving planning. A proposal has been put forward to build a modern complex beside Ennis Abbey and Dúchas, if it had received adequate funding and aid, could have purchased the land adjacent to the abbey. The Minister and her Department have plans to erect a roof over Ennis Abbey in order to make it more amenable to visitors. It is also envisaged that guided tours of the substantial heritage contained in the abbey will be provided. The attitude appears to be that improvements should be limited to the perimeter of the building, with no thought given to creating other amenities which would be valuable to the tourism industry in Ennis.

I accept the need to provide housing and promote development in Ennis but the site adjacent to the abbey is not the place for this. However, Dúchas can do nothing because it lacks the necessary funds to purchase the site. The Department appears to be caught between a rock and a hard place. It will be culturally disastrous for Ennis if An Bord Pleanála grants permission for a housing development beside the abbey.

When the EU examined this area, it made a number of recommendations. As previous speakers stated, the EU is prepared to collectively support the built environment and protect architectural heritage. We should move towards consolidating the efforts of the different groups working to protect such heritage. Leader groups, FÁS and community groups are responsible for this in various constituencies.

When the interdepartmental group made its recommendations, it stated that a central authority should be nominated by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and given responsibility for carrying out a national inventory and making other recommendations. If the central authority is based in the Department, it will not receive the necessary support. County planning and strategy groups were established in the west but for some reason they appear to be paralysed or immobile. If these groups were brought together they could consolidate county development plans and Dúchas's plans for their areas. If the Minister or one of her colleagues brought these groups together it would help to expedite matters and reduce the 12 year time frame which, in my view, is a recipe for disaster because it will lead to valuable heritage being lost forever.

A good suggestion for the preservation of heritage of this nature emerged from proposals for the conservation of the Burren, namely, the creation of a necklace of interpretative centres. A similar development could be put in place in respect of abbeys. For example, in addition to Ennis Abbey there are also abbeys at Killone, Quin and Newmarket-on-Fergus in County Clare. I believe necklaces of abbeys could be created as a heritage and tourism interest. Given that the Minister and the Minister for Finance have access to substantial funds, they should take action on this matter.

Mr. Perry

Twelve years is too long a period to grant in respect of carrying out a national inventory of all buildings in the State. The systematic recording of the State's architectural heritage began in 1990 and has been carried out on a non-statutory basis. Those responsible for making such records have no right of access to the interiors of buildings. This deficiency is to be rectified by the new Bill which will provide legal rights of entry to buildings for the purpose of establishing the inventory.

Under the new law, local authorities serving a dangerous building notice on a structure listed in the inventory will be obliged to notify the Minister. That is an important development. However, if they are to take effective action in this regard, local authorities must be given adequate funding. The national inventory of our architectural heritage will identify those buildings which the Minister will recommend local authorities to preserve. It is important that adequate funding should be allocated in each region for the purpose of preserving the architectural heritage.

As I said, 12 years is a long period and, as Deputy Carey stated, the inventory should be completed within a shorter time frame because a great deal of damage could be done in the interim. At the core of the protection of our national heritage must lie a comprehensive and detailed record of the stock of buildings that constitute the architectural heritage of this State. It is important to carry out an initial survey and it would be beneficial if a more detailed survey could be carried out during the 12 year period, but the completion of a full survey during that period will pose a major problem.

I congratulate the Minister on the work done to Ballymote Castle and on the recent celebrations there.

Debate adjourned.