Vol. 540 No. 3
8 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands the progress being made in her consideration of the recent report from the Heritage Council which said that one-third of the State's 27,000 stone structures and monuments were significantly damaged or suffering neglect; if her Department has met with representatives of the council to discuss the report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20307/01]
32 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands the number of monuments in the State; the number in State ownership; her views on the report that many stone structures and monuments have been badly damaged; and if she has proposals to extend State ownership or otherwise to encourage the preservation of these monuments. [20226/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 32 together.
As these are both oral questions not more than 12 minutes is allotted.
My Department is already familiar with the problems besetting stone monuments and is conversant with the issues raised in the Heritage Council report. No formal meetings have taken place between the Heritage Council and my Department for the specific purpose of discussing this report but I would expect that the topic would be aired when my officials next meet with representatives of the council.
The Deputies may be aware that I have previously stated that the report needs to be put in context. For example, stone monuments are, by their nature, largely ruinous and, in most cases, have been in decay for many hundreds of years; this is an inherited problem and even with best conservation practice, which is slow and painstaking by its nature, the problems will not be remedied overnight; the rate of decay relates to the type of stone used in the construction so that, for example, soft sandstone monuments are more affected than limestone monuments and this is particularly true in the case of the finer carved detailing on many of the sites assessed in the report; intensive damage is often caused by higher vegetal species such as ivy and trees but the remedy does not require costly specialist interventions; and finally, the report assesses only 112 monuments but there are over 120,000 monuments in the State of which 740 are in State care.
The Deputies will be aware that in November last year I announced a major investment of over £100 million in the built heritage under the national development plan which included an unprecedented level of commitment to the conservation of national monuments in the care of the State. Given the above context I emphasise that the State, through Dúchas, the heritage service of my Department, has been to the fore in stone conservation practice in caring for the 740 monuments in State ownership. I have also supplemented this direct investment with a new apprenticeship programme. This will widen the skills base available in my Department and help to ensure that there is a continuation of the skills necessary to carrying out a successful conservation programme.
I was also pleased to be able to provide an additional £500,000 to the Heritage Council in this year's Revised Estimates, thereby enabling the council to allocate £1.25 million in 2001 to its buildings at risk programme.
I have no plans to extend public ownership of monuments. In 1999, the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage, or NIAH, was formally established in my Department following the enactment of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1999. The aim of the NIAH is to identify, record and evaluate the architecture of Ireland in a systematic and uniform manner.
It has always been my position that successful protection of the built heritage cannot be achieved through the State services alone. While much has been done in recent years with the introduction of new measures to protect our buildings of value, through a scheme of grants and provision of expertise at local authority level, it is up to everyone – the State, property owners, developers and the experts – to play their part.
I am heartened by what I see in the private sector when it comes to conservation and in this particular instance, stone conservation. There is now a proliferation of specialist firms and individuals operating in this area with the result that the fabric of many of our fine buildings, including the likes of churches and Georgian buildings, are being conserved.
Does the Minister agree that in light of her answer to a similar question on 29 May this year she was anticipating that her officials would be making arrangements to meet with representatives of the Heritage Council but that that meeting has not yet taken place and no date has been set for it? Is she not aware that the chief executive of the Heritage Council has stated that it was vital that the situation be remedied as quickly as possible? He further stated that for far too long we have ignored the problem to the detriment of our dolmens, stone crosses, churches and castles.
As I said, I am sure this issue will be discussed by my officials and representatives of the Heritage Council at their next meeting. To put this in perspective regarding the findings of that report, I agree that that report needs to be discussed with the Heritage Council because, for example, the council indicated that Baltinglass Abbey was one of the most damaged monuments but this view is not shared by my own experts. The issues need to be discussed in more detail and I am sure that will be done before too long.
Can the Minister inform the House if a comprehensive archaeological survey of the country on a county by county basis has yet been completed? I know Donegal's was completed ten or 15 years ago but what is the situation nationally? How many counties have yet to complete such a survey in order to give us a real and accurate picture of the situation on the ground regarding this important part of our national heritage?
I am sure the Deputy remembers our discussions on the establishment of the NIAH. It was important to get this under way because without the legislation that now exists it would have taken no less than 40 years to complete the survey. Under the NIAH that will be completed within 12 years. Regarding the county surveys, when discussing that in the House previously I have said that it is hoped that the county surveys are complete within two to three years. Obviously the counties issue is a separate question but I can get the information for the Deputy. I see where he is coming from and the county surveys are obviously being given priority to ensure that that particular work is done as quickly as possible.
Does the Minister agree that the report from the Heritage Council has caused much concern among various communities? It appears that Dúchas and the Heritage Council are in conflict on this issue. I seek an assurance from the Minister that Dúchas will carry out and publish its own report rather than disagreeing with the Heritage Council. She mentioned Baltinglass Abbey, Blackcastle in Wicklow, the crystals well in Greystones and other sites mentioned in the report. Will Deputy de Valera get Dúchas to carry out and publish a professional report on those to reassure the public. It is not totally satisfactory to be told that Dúchas disagrees with the Heritage Council.
Given that most local authorities have appointed heritage officers, has the Minister issued guidelines so that a co-ordinated listing and national inventory of heritage sites are produced to ensure different local authorities do not emphasise different aspects of buildings. Currently, there is too much emphasis on buildings in urban areas, which may not have very much importance in terms of heritage.
Would the Minister not agree that the approach of her Department is quite lethargic when one considers that the survey found that one in five of the monuments is affected by intensive stone decay and that one in ten shows such structural damage as to be in danger of collapse? What action is being taken with regard to the difficulties highlighted in the report regarding the frieze carvings at Ardmore Cathedral in County Waterford?
I agree with Deputy Ulick Burke in terms of the movement of the heritage offices to the county councils. It will be a tremen dous boon in that they will be able to focus on issues relevant to them. It will be of great benefit to the local authorities and the people in the regions in which they administer.
With regard to a co-ordinated listing, the local authorities have a specific responsibility of listing buildings of local interest. Sometimes, that responsibility is confused by some individuals with the responsibilities I have at a national level. The local authorities have very specific responsibilities and they are uniform.
It must be the first time a politician has been accused of causing weathering. I cannot be responsible for how certain stone monuments become ruinous because of the materials used in their building. As I pointed out, stone monuments are, by there nature, largely ruinous and, in most cases, they have been in a state of decay for many hundreds of years. The time it takes for buildings to suffer from erosion depends on the type of material with which they were built. This must be taken into account.
In the light of the report, the first thing that should be done is to have a discussion with the Heritage Council. There is possibly a difference of opinion between two bodies of experts – those in the Heritage Council and those in my Department. I would be putting it too strongly to suggest there is conflict. It would be wise to await the outcome of that discussion before pre-empting how either side will react to the issue.
