Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Dec 1986

Vol. 115 No. 9

Private Members' Business. - National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 7.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 13, subsection (1), lines 38 and 39, to delete "in their opinion they can do so without injury to the monument and".

In section 7 we are dealing with the removal of national monuments to museums and other places of protection. I want to make the case to the Minister that it is a good section as it stands. I want to put it to the Minister that there are many situations where, even though it might not be possible to move a monument without injury — in some cases the injury might be minimal — it might be more desirable in many cases to move it than to leave it in its present position.

In my own town of Kells we have the Market Cross which is almost as famous as the Book of Kells. Unfortunately, the Market Cross is in a bad way in many respects. It is in a very exposed situation at a corner where there is a problem with traffic fumes. There is the problem of acid rain for all such monuments. There is also the fact that the cross, like so many others of its kind, has cracks and crevices which during frosty weather expose it to damage. From year to year the problem is worsening. People sitting on the monument and examining the base abuse the monument.

The decision was made by the urban council to move this cross specifically for the reason that it was in imminent danger. The people of the town objected. One of the points that came up was the possibility of damage to the cross because it has cracks. Unfortunately, left in its present position the cross will deteriorate from year to year. I hope the Minister will accept that even though there might be some possibility of damage in moving the cross it would be far better to take that risk, especially with the sophisticated means we have at present for moving that type of monument. I hope the Minister will accept that the situation we have in my town applies in many cases. It seems to me that when this Bill becomes law that restriction will make the moving of this cross impossible. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. This would give the commissioners discretion in the matter and it would be far better to give them that discretion than to tie their hands in this way with legislation.

Professor Dooge

I am very sympathetic to the point Senator Fitzsimons has made but I fear the amendment goes too far. The amendment in deleting the words "in their opinion they can do so without injury to the monument and" does rob the monument of any protection whatsoever. On the other hand I ask the Minister to consider very carefully, not necessarily this evening on Committee Stage, but between now and Report Stage, the substance of the argument which has been made by Senator Fitzsimons. It may well be that the movement of a monument may cause minor damage to that monument but would in the long term preserve the monument.

It may be possible to find a form of words to say where in their opinion it is in the interests of the preservation of a monument for it to be moved. There may be a case where there can be a balance of advantage and disadvantage. The arguments Senator Fitzsimons has made are good arguments but the amendment goes well beyond what the arguments would ask us to do. There is a real case to allow the commissioners to make up their minds about the balance of advantage that the risk or even the occurrence of minor injury might contribute to preservation in the long run.

Mr. Mullooly

I would like to support the points made by Senator Fitzsimons and Senator Dooge. The points which Senator Dooge made would go a long way towards meeting the case Senator Fitzsimons has put forward. The main criterion should be the extent to which the monument is at risk and, if the removal of the monument would result in some slight damage to the monument, it would be better that the monument would be moved and preserved rather than leave it in a location where it is at considerable risk.

Mr. Fitzsimons

May I make one brief comment on Senator Dooge's contribution? I accept what he says to a considerable extent, but I find it difficult to accept that if the amendment were accepted by the Minister it would rob a monument of every protection. Having regard to the fact that the commissioners are under obligation for the protection of monuments, that the National Monuments Advisory Council would be a very erudite body of qualified and professional and concerned individuals I do not accept that any monument could be robbed of its protection. With regard to what Senator Dooge said, I would not insist that this wording is the proper wording. I am trying to indicate to the Minister that the wording will lead to problems and that this area needs some tidying up. If the Minister would agree to look at it and see what could be done, I would be satisfied.

Professor Dooge

Perhaps the use of the words "undue injury" or something of this sort would help.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mrs. A. Doyle)

Or "material injury". I am prepared to look at this again. I do not accept the amendment as worded but I fully accept the sentiments expressed by both sides in relation to this. We could amend the word "injury" in some way so as not to make it impossible to comply with this regulation when the balance of advantage might lie in moving a monument. We will come back to it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 13, subsection (1), line 45, after "Minister." to add: "Priority will in all cases be given to a local museum, if and when one exists."

This is in regard to the situation where the commissioners for the protection of a monument want to move it to some place in the State. I know this is not the time to make a case for local museums but it is no harm to point out that we are losing much of our heritage from year to year. A local museum is a tourist attraction. All over the country we have agricultural implements and domestic implements that were used in the past and if they are not collected they will be lost to posterity. Every country should have a local museum. If it is decided to move a monument for its protection and there is a local county museum, it should be deposited if possible in the local museum. Where a local museum might not be big enough there should be an obligation on the Government to give some kind of financial help to make it suitable. These monuments should not be moved from the regions in which they are well known and in which they are sited. I would like to see in this Bill recognition being given to the value of local museums if, because of financial constraints, nothing can be done in the immediate future. I would like the Minister to accept this amendment.

Professor Dooge

The question which is prompted by the amendment is: in what legislation do we find public museums and local museums defined?

Mrs. A. Doyle

I generally favour the idea of retaining monuments as close as possible to their original position. I do not think, however, that the proposed amendment is desirable. It would mean that a monument would have to be lodged in a local museum whether or not the museum provided adequate security or the right environmental conditions for the monument in question. The conservation of monuments at all times must be the priority rather than their situation. I would hope that, in practice where the right environmental and security conditions exist, the local museum would be the number one choice of place.

Mr. Fitzsimons

It seems to me that a locality could be robbed of its monuments. If it were the desire of the commissioners to enhance the National Museum or some very important museum they could, on the basis of this legislation, move whatever monuments they liked. That would be a pity. Consideration should be given in all cases to the suitability of local museums. There are many instances where the local museum might not be suitable but serious consideration should be given to the local museum before the removal of a monument.

Mrs. A. Doyle

I am advised that it is not in the best interests of what must be our priority, the conservation of monuments, to comply with this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 are similar and may be discussed together.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 13, subsection (1) (a), line 54, to delete "reason to believe" and substitute "evidence".

This is the situation with regard to the inspection of historic monuments. Section 8 as it is at the moment reads as follows:

The Commissioners may cause such inspections, investigations and reports as they may direct (either generally or particularly) to be made by their officers, servants, agents or other persons duly authorised by them in that behalf in regard to (a) historic monuments, and places where the Commissioners have reason to believe that historic monuments exist, and (b) restricted areas and sites that the Commissioners have reason to believe to be sites of wreck or archaeological objects.

I think "reason to believe" is a very wide-ranging phrase. I would be happier if the Minister would agree to substitute "evidence" in both these situations.

Professor Dooge

I would like to ask the Minister not to agree. If we look back at the history of archaeology, let us take for example the classic discovery of Troy by Schliemann, he had no evidence whatsoever which he could have produced to anybody to indicate that the city of Troy was where he thought it was. He had reason to believe. Most other archaeologists thought he was mad and that it was unreasonable to believe that beneath this particular part of Asia Minor was the city of Troy. Schliemann followed his reason to believe and backed it with his own money and in fact achieved this remarkable archaeological discovery. If there had been an Act in force at that time in the Turkish Empire which prohibited him from going in until he produced evidence, Troy might yet be undiscovered.

Mrs. A. Doyle

Senator Dooge has clearly identified why I am not in a position to take on board this amendment. "Evidence" is more specific than "reason to believe" and the commissioners would be unduly restricted if their officers, agents et al could not enter on land until they had evidence that a monument existed. To a large extent, the field work done by the archaeological survey is for the purpose of finding evidence that monuments exist. Likewise, they would be restricted in their search for wrecks or archaeological objects if they could not make inspections before they had evidence.

Mr. Fitzsimons

The Bill gives this wide discretion. It says "reason to believe" and it does not say "sound reason" or "good reason". While in the majority of cases I am sure "reason to believe" would in some way amount to "evidence" from the point of view of old maps or local traditions or something of that kind, it seems to me that it gives these wide powers which, on occasions and perhaps on very limited occasions, would not be discretely used.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 57 not moved.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 14, subsection (2), line 5, after "may" to insert "at twenty-four hours notice".

Subsection (2) reads:

The Commissioners, their officers, servants, or agents, or other persons duly authorised by the Commissioners on that behalf, may for the purpose of performing their functions under this section enter on any lands or premises and there do all things as may reasonably be necessary for the purposes of those functions.

It seems to me that there is power in this subsection to move on to land without any notice whatever. Again, it seems to me, taking into consideration the rights of ownership and private property, that 24 hours notice would be reasonable.

Professor Dooge

I have some sympathy here with Senator Fitzsimons. I have to reveal that at one time I worked for the Office of Public Works, not in the archaeological section but in the arterial drainage section and we had powers to enter land for survey purposes. In after years I often thought of the cavalier manner in which we exercised those powers; the way in which we would drive on to land for the purposes of surveying with out having a proper regard or a proper respect for the owner. I have sympathy with the idea that entry should normally be made after notice to the owner but, on the other hand, I can see occasions in which it would come to the notice of the Office of Public Works that there was immediate danger of damage to a monument and under such emergency conditions I think a delay of 24 hours might be disastrous. I do not know whether it is possible to combine these to a proper degree of notice for a routine entry on to land, with the power to dispense with that notice in case of monuments in danger.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I am glad I have one thing in common with Senator Dooge. I worked for a number of years in the Office of Public Works. Perhaps we could include the phase "except in a case of urgency" or something of that kind.

Mr. Ferris

A Cathaoirleach, if I am out of order I know you will rule me out of order immediately. The words in the section which we are trying to amend are "may reasonably be necessary for the purposes of those functions." The commissioners would not enter on to land unless it was reasonable. The word "reasonable" probably quantifies what the entry is about at all. There is no need for a time limit because they would not do anything unreasonable. I presume entry is required to do reasonable things. Otherwise, there is no point in entry at all.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister will be able to say she works in the Office of Public Works.

Mrs. A. Doyle

Giving 24 hours notice is not always practicable. There is a similar provision in the 1930 Act in regard to the commissioners' functions under the Act and no difficulties have ever been encountered. I see no need for this amendment. For the most part, these inspections involve visits to land and cause no inconvenience to occupies. There can be a lot of damage done in 24 hours to any monument at risk.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Mullooly

Are the commissioners prohibited by law from making by-laws in relation to national monuments of which they are not the owners or the guardians? I would like to see a provision in this section where the commissioners could make by-laws in relation to any monument or archaeological area entered in the register of monuments.

Mrs. A. Doyle

I am advised there is no provision at the moment in relation to by-laws but in this Bill we are introducing provisions for monuments we will own ourselves, not for those we will not own.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 10 agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Government Amendment No. 59:

In page 14, line 37, after "erection" to insert "or group of such buildings, structures or erections".

Mrs. A. Doyle

This is an amendment which I initiated myself and which I feel very strongly about. The purpose of the amendment is to enable appropriate protection to be given to groups of buildings. Much concern has been expressed about the position in relation to the provision of the necessary protection for these buildings. The Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, has taken a personal interest in efforts to protect groups of buildings or streetscapes, as it were. The Convention for the Protection of Architectural Heritage Bureau which was signed by my predecessor, Deputy J. Bermingham, in October 1985 defines architectural heritage as comprising of monuments, groups of buildings and sites, monuments and sites i.e. archaeological areas, already covered in this Bill. It is only proper that we should also make provisions for groups of buildings. The effect of the amendment is that groups of buildings may now be listed under the National Monuments Acts and, if the circumstances warrant, be protected by preservation orders or taken into guardianship by the commissioners or by a local authority.

A preservation order may be made when the commissioners are satisfied that a monument is such that its preservation is a matter of national importance and which, in their opinion, is in danger of being, or is actually being, destroyed, injured or removed, or is falling into decay through neglect. The making of a guardianship order is a further step that the commissioners may take if they consider it is necessary for them to carry out works to the monument and provided it is not occupied as a dwelling. I am particularly interested in preserving groups of buildings in our cities and towns such as Dublin's Georgian streets and squares. This amendment will add to the armoury of legislation which may be availed of to protect such streetscapes.

This provision may also be used for the protection of groups of rural buildings which are of historic or architectural interest. I might add, in passing, that it is opportune that we have this legislation before the Seanad at the moment and I hope it will reach the Dáil shortly so that we can include in it protection for our most important streetscapes and groups of buildings in rural areas also. It may be argued that perhaps the Planning Acts generally or local government legislation might be a better vehicle. Time is not on our side. We cannot wait until such legislation is up and running. This protection, in itself, is most important and is much overdue in relation to this area.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I welcome this amendment. It is necessary. I cannot relate it to specific instances. If we take the example of a Georgian terrace of houses inhabited at present in any of our towns I presume that is part of what the Minister means. I am not sure what would follow. In what way would this be preserved? Would financial help be available? I know that in the North thatched cottages are listed buildings. Special grants are available to maintain those thatched houses. In particular instances, where major works are required, extra grants are available. Would the Minister clarify if, in this situation, the same would apply? The actual set up of a streetscape, where the houses are inhabited, means that that part of the street becomes a national monument. In what way could you compel somebody to preserve a street? If the houses were more or less derelict, I am not sure what the position would be.

Mrs. A. Doyle

At no stage in this Bill do we go into the whole area of grants. It is more the financing of our heritage generally which is a very vexed question. There is no guarantee that moneys will be available to meet any of the proposals we are dealing with here. I hope — and it is a personal opinion — that we will treat our heritage as we treat many areas and that grants will be available according to some national listing or criteria, either operated through the Office of Public Works or the Department of the Environment. That effectively is another day's debate. It is not for this amendment or, indeed, this Bill before us now.

Effectively, what this would mean would be that where appropriate, Georgian streetscapes could be protected. They would be registered in our register of monuments and the owners would not be able to do any works, alter, amend or develop in any way the actual buildings without referring to the Commissioners of Public Works and effectively the local authority planning section. There will be enormous fines for disobeying the commissioners' rulings on historic monuments. The fines will be a major deterrent to people ripping out the Georgian windows or the Georgian doors and replacing them with aluminium fittings. That will not be allowed. We will be able to decide and direct on what type of works are done. Ideally, we should be in a position to follow that up with some sort of grant or some sort of help in relation to the preservation. We are not at that stage. There is no guarantee, as we discuss this, that that will be the case. That is for another day.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I am not happy that that is a good situation. Under the Planning Acts, 1963 to 1986, there is adequate protection for that. People who want to alter the frontage of a house must get planning permission. There is no instance that I know of where they can alter the frontage of a house without planning permission. The people who live in those houses would seem to me to be restricted very much in that type of property. If they change windows, or if they do something which is considered in contravention of this legislation, they are liable to very heavy fines or penalties.

Mrs. A. Doyle

Maximum fines. They are not absolute. There are fines of £5,000 depending on the judge.

Mr. Fitzsimons

It is limited discretion because if there is the option of a very heavy penalty, it depends on how a judge would consider the case.

Mrs. A. Doyle

There is also the option of obeying the law. They would be defacing what would probably be an historic monument.

Mr. Fitzsimons

That is exactly what I am saying. I think it is unfair to constrain people unduly. We are talking of inhabited houses. We are talking of houses that people live in and that people may want to alter in some way or to modify. At present, if they want to do that, they must get planning permission, with the exception of an exempted development which would be an extension to the rear of a house of 23 square meters. In my own town we have a particularly attractive Georgian terrace. There is no way I know that it could be altered.

Mrs. A. Doyle

They could put in aluminium windows without planning permission.

Mr. Fitzsimons

That is a point I want to make. In one case in this beautiful terrace one individual did instal plastic windows. I am not too sure if it altered the house very much or if it took from the house. You have to examine the plastic windows very minutely. You have to go over and look at them to examine plastic windows very minutely, to realise that they are plastic windows. I am not making a case for plastic windows because my preference is for natural timber windows. In that situation you had an individual who had a house with windows which had deteriorated and needed to be replaced. He decided that from the point of view of maintenance he would save money in the long term by installing plastic windows. While I am against plastic windows I do not think it takes from the terrace in question.

Mrs. A. Doyle

PVC.

Mr. Fitzsimons

Yes, white PVC. Under this piece of legislation that individual would have broken the law.

Mrs. A. Doyle

No, he would have to ask the commissioners first before he put the PVC windows in.

Professor Dooge

It could be a renovation.

Mr. Fitzsimons

That is exempted. He does not have to ask permission once he is not enlarging the windows and there is no structural alteration.

Mrs. A. Doyle

He should have to ask. If the building was worthy of preservation and the common good he should have to ask.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is not talking about preservation, he is talking generally.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I am talking about the situation where people living in these houses will be committing an offence and liable to heavy penalties if they carry out work to their houses.

Professor Dooge

Only where it is done without consent.

Mrs. A. Doyle

It is only where it is done without the consent of the commissioners. We are not going to be unreasonable.

Professor Dooge

Under section 13 you can renovate or restore a national monument with consent. The offence is only if it is done without consent.

Mrs. A. Doyle

That is right.

Professor Dooge

I support the protection that is here on the grounds that many of the planning authorities have not done their job in this regard. It should be adequate for this to be covered by planning but the planning authorities have not done so. What has been done here is not quite as widespread as is indicated.

The Senator talked about Georgian houses. Georgian houses were built after 1700. Therefore, they do not automatically become historic monuments. There must be something special about this group of Georgian houses or they do not become monuments. If there is something special, then they must be the subject of permission before renovations are carried out. I welcome this. We are very far behind many countries of Europe whose town centres we admire. In many countries in Europe it is an immense liability to buy a house which is more than 100 years old because the planning laws are so strict in regard to renovation that what you have to pay in order to maintain the house in its pristine condition is far more than you have to pay for the house itself. The Minister is making a small move in this direction. As long as there is sufficient publicity in regard to this indicating to people that they need the consent I do not think that in the case like Senator Fitzsimons mentioned where the work was done in such a way that it was virtually indistinguishable, consent will not be withheld. We have seen botch jobs in town centres in Ireland that ruin a townscape and are jarring to the eye. This is something which should not happen for the sake of ourselves whose heritage it is and for the sake of the visitors whom we are trying to attract to these areas.

Mr. Fitzsimons

With regard to what Senator Dooge has said, I do not think the date of 1700 is relevant. As we have seen the Minister has the power to make regulations to alter——

Mrs. A. Doyle

Not for a few years.

Mr. Fitzsimons

The power is there if the Minister wants to use it. It has to be confined to buildings that were erected before 1700 and that in a sense is a weakness. I am not contradicting the Minister —you are entitled to your opinion and I am simply expressing mine. As Senator Dooge has said, some works which have been carried out are a disgrace. That is a problem for planning regulations. The planning laws are adequate.

Professor Dooge

But the planners are not adequate.

Mr. Fitzsimons

It is unfair to think that we can deal in a global sense with this problem on Committee Stage of this Bill. There are many problems to be taken into consideration. The planning legislation is adequate. I understand from what the Minister said that application would have to be made to replace windows, for example. I do not think this can do anymore than the planning legislation we have, bearing in mind that there is no finance. I could envisage a situation where somebody in one of those houses would not have the financial means to keep the condition of the House as it should be, but there is no finance here. There is financial help in the North of Ireland for listed buildings where some improvement works are necessary. If that were the situation here it would be far different — there would be no comparison with the planning legislation. We are cutting across the planning regulation in this legislation. I agree with the intention the Minister has stated but I am not satisfied that this is the proper way to do it. Let us take a situation, for example, where somebody is living in one of those houses and for want of finance it deteriorates and becomes derelict. There is nothing in the Bill which would prevent it becoming derelict. Under the planning regulations there is nothing to prevent it from becoming derelict. This is a weakness in the legislation and this Bill will do very little for streetscapes or buildings of that kind.

Mr. Durcan

I have come upon this debate somewhat by accident but I am nevertheless interested in this provision which, having listened to it, is a very interesting and welcome provision. As I understand the provision, one only has to walk down Fitzwilliam Street and see the devastation that was done there by a State-sponsored body 25 years ago when there was not adequate provision to deal with one of the most magnificent Georgian landscapes in Europe. Another example, perhaps closer to the Minister's seat of office, is St. Stephen's Green where tremendous damage was done in relation to the mock Georgian fronts which were erected at the corner of Hume Street. You and your office and the commissioners in their office should give some example in relation to what is left of St. Stephen's Green by doing something to restore the most appalling frontscape of your building. It is one of the most magnificant buildings in this city but it is a shame to drive by your office and see the appalling front which was obviously mocked up in some way in the thirties and which has not been cleaned up or tidied since then. If the Minister is to give practical effect to what she is talking about in this Bill, she should start with No. 51 St. Stephen's Green.

Mrs. A. Doyle

I want to say a few things briefly in no particular order of importance. We will notify anybody who goes on the register and who would be included in this so that they will know if they had an interesting building. Regarding guardianship orders, if an important dwelling is falling around their ears we can go in and do the work on behalf of the owner, but that would not happen in all cases. I do not want to pretend that it would be too widespread. There are also tax reliefs under section 19 of the 1982 Finance Act which are available for buildings of significant architectural, artistic, scientific or historic interest, tax relief for money spent on repairs and tax relief from property tax.

Basically we are trying to bring in something in line with the conservation area orders of the UK which are very effective and very stringent in the conditions relating to, for instance, the colour of paint, the type of slates and the type of stone used. We have to fall into line in relation to this. There are house improvement grants available which will still apply to windows, etc. All we are saying is that if these buildings are on our register as historic monuments, we must be notified of any proposals for development, change or renovation. In most cases there will be no problems but at least we will stop the use of PVC if necessary or other mutilation of our Georgian exteriors.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.