Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Dec 1998

Vol. 157 No. 15

Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998: Second Stage.

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

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey)

Cuireann sé áthas orm an Bille tábhachtach seo a chur ós comhair an tSeanaid inniu. Is cinnte go bhféachfar ar an mBille seo sna blianta atá romhainn mar Bhille stairiúil; Bille a dtéann i ngleic leis an ngá atá ann cosaint cuimsitheach a thabhairt d'ár n-oidhreacht.

From ancient time architecture has been called the mother of arts. The architecture of any society or any age tells us much about the economic and social life of that age. It also tells us about the technology and aesthetics of the age of the society from which it comes. Our buildings are the greatest physical representation of our history and our cultural past. It follows from this that every generation carries a great onus of responsibility to ensure that its built inheritance is preserved and passed on to future generations having, of course, added its own architectural increment.

While legislation in this country for the protection of ancient buildings and monuments has generally been regarded as strong and effective, the legislation governing other buildings of architectural merit has not been as effective as it should be in preserving such buildings from the pressure of the modern age.

No one would now deny that there have been serious lapses in our national performance in this respect. Unfortunately, once lapses are made in this area they cannot be rectified. There is widespread agreement that we need to put in place a much more effective regime if we are to properly fulfil our responsibility to our own and future generations to protect our architectural heritage from the threats posed to it, threats that can range from a lack of resources to carelessness, ignorance and greed.

The Government's programme contains a commitment to introduce up-dated and consolidated planning laws to prepare for the challenges of the new millennium. This Bill on the architectural heritage represents the first stage in meeting that commitment. I plan to follow it up with a comprehensive consolidated planning Bill, the heads of which I plan to bring to Government shortly.

This new regime, decided on by Government for the protection of our architectural heritage, can be said to comprise three pillars: modern, robust, comprehensive legislation, dedicated financial resources and the employment of adequate expertise and knowledge. The first pillar consists of this planning Bill, which will transform the legislative protection afforded to the architectural heritage. It has been drafted following comprehensive consultation and consideration of all issues involved. Many of the provisions derive from the report of the interdepartmental working group on strengthening and protecting the architectural heritage which reported in September 1996. The committee had consulted widely before reporting and many observations were received following publication of the report. The Bill expands and improves on the working group's recommendations.

The Bill will introduce a systematic approach to the protection of buildings in Ireland. Local authorities have been criticised in the past for widely divergent approaches for listing buildings for protection in their development plans. Some local authorities have comprehensive lists, others have none; some have one list while others have six or seven.

Distinctions are often made between objectives to preserve buildings and objectives to consider their preservation. The Bill will bring uniformity to the way in which buildings are protected in the future. The formal record of protected structures created under the Bill will be kept in a standard format common to all local authorities. The Bill will also remove the distinctions between lists. If a building is worth placing on the record of protected structures then it is worth protecting.

This new systematic approach to protecting built heritage will be enhanced by using the resources of the national inventory of architectural heritage, which is administered by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. The inventory will be used as a national database to record Ireland's built environment. It is intended that those buildings which are identified by the inventory as being of international, national or regional significance will be recommended to the local authorities for protection.

Local authorities will continue to have an ongoing role in identifying buildings for protection independently of the inventory. They will have to determine the buildings which are of significance to the local community and, therefore, deserving of protection. Guidance will be given to the local authorities to help them carry out these functions in a consistent manner.

Once buildings are identified for protection they will be subject to comprehensive protection. The protection extended to buildings under the Planning and Development Act, 1963, was too narrow and many interiors have been lost because they were not specifically listed. This Bill will ensure that where a building is protected the whole building, interior and curtilage, will be subject to that protection.

Any works which would affect the character of the building will require planning permission. I recognise that this proposal could be quite onerous on owners of protected buildings. Therefore, the Bill provides that owners and occupiers of protected buildings will be entitled to a declaration from the planning authority which would determine the types of works which the planning authority considers would affect the character of the building.

Another key issue in providing comprehensive protection is the need to protect buildings independently of the statutory five year review of development plans. The Bill, therefore, facilitates the addition of buildings to the record of protected buildings as the need arises. Furthermore, the Bill tackles the issue of protected buildings being allowed to fall into dilapidation due to the neglect of the owner or occupier and will allow local authorities take a proactive role in ensuring protected buildings do not become neglected and are modelled on the Derelict Sites Act, 1990. We have had a number of very infamous cases where this was allowed to happen in the past but this Bill will ensure that it can no longer happen.

The Bill also responds to the need to identify and make provision in development plans for special streetscapes or other areas of interest which need to be protected. This will allow planning authorities to apply local planning policies to these areas in a way that will ensure that any development is compatible with the character of the area. For example, this will facilitate protection of a whole square rather than just individual buildings.

I accept that legislation in itself is not sufficient to ensure the protection of the built heritage, it needs to be backed by resources. This brings me to the second pillar — money. The Government announced last May that it would provide a new budget line of £5 million per annum from 1999 onwards to ensure that the package of measures can be fully implemented. Out of this around £4 million will be available for grant aid for protected buildings.

The new scheme of grant aid will be administered by the principal local authorities as it is the local authorities who will have the statutory function of protecting buildings under this Bill. An advisory group made up of representatives from my Department, the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, the Heritage Council and the County and City Managers' Association is finalising recommendations on the detailed terms and conditions of the new grant scheme for protected structures. We are aiming for effective and consistent administration of grant aid throughout the country. I expect that, in the initial years at least, those buildings most at risk will be a priority.

Local authorities are also being provided with £300,000 per annum to assist them in employing the necessary conservation expertise to ensure that all buildings worthy of listing are identified, the legislation enforced and the grant scheme operated effectively. Coupled with the major increase in general funding for local authorities which I am making available next year, this allocation should enable the local government service to employ 15 to 20 conservation officers. This new cadre of conservation experts will constitute part of the third pillar — the expertise about which I spoke earlier.

The provision of proper conservation advice is fundamental to the success of this Bill. I am certain, therefore, that the deployment of conservation expertise in the local authority service will bring such expertise to local authorities and will enhance it where it already exists. This local expertise will in turn be backed up by comprehensive guidelines drawn up at central level by Dúchas, the heritage service, in consultation with my Department. Dúchas will also act as a central unit providing day-to-day advice to conservation officers and local authorities regarding their functions. This system will bring a consistency of approach to the conservation of the built environment in Ireland which has been lacking up to now.

I will now turn briefly to the main provisions of the Bill. Senators have available a very comprehensive explanatory memorandum so I will concentrate on the essential features. The definitions of structure and protected structure in section 1 are crucial to the understanding of the Bill. The effect of these definitions is that when a building is included in the record of protected structures, the interior of the protected structure, including its fixtures and features and the land and structures immediately around it — the curtilage — will be automatically protected and will no longer require specific listing. This marks a major advance on the present limited provisions. Other features in the grounds of the structure beyond the curtilage, for example, a folly or an ornamental fountain, which add to the architectural interest of the building may also be included for protection if specifically identified on the record. It should also be noted that the term "protected structure" as a legal term will replace the term "listed building". This is in line with common international practice.

Section 2 provides that planning authorities will be obliged to have a record of structures of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest which will form part of the development plan for the area. This constitutes a wider definition of architectural heritage than the reference to buildings of "artistic, historic or architectural interest" in the existing legislation. The record of protected structures will continue in existence even where a review or a variation of a new development plan is carried out under Part III of the 1963 Act.

The requirement to set up a record is linked to the mandatory provision to include objectives in the development plan for the protection of the architectural heritage which is provided by the amendment of section 19 of the Planning Act, 1963, by section 33 of this Bill. This amendment in section 33 also obliges planning authorities to include objectives in the development plan to protect groups of structures and places, including townscapes.

Section 3 provides that the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands may, after consulting with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, issue guidelines to planning authorities to assist them in carrying out their functions under this Bill in protecting buildings and townscapes. Again, the guidelines will ensure that a consistent approach to protecting the built heritage is adopted nationwide.

Section 4 provides that in addition to the above guidelines, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands may recommend the inclusion of particular structures in the record of protected structures. This will be based on the information contained in the National Inventory of the Architectural Heritage.

Section 5 provides that a planning authority may add a building to the record of protected structures where it considers that such a building warrants protection or may delete a structure where protection is no longer warranted. The making of a deletion from, or an addition to, the record of protected structures may be carried out when reviewing the development plan as part of the statutory five year review or in accordance with provisions laid down in section 6.

Section 6 sets out the procedure for amending the record of protected structures independently of the development plan review process. This will allow buildings to be protected as the need arises without having to wait for the five year development plan review process — a weak point of the old system. The final decision on what structures are to be accorded protected status will rest with the elected members of the authority.

Section 8 provided that planning permission will be required for any works on a protected structure which affect its character. As the new protection will now extend to the interior of structures permission may, therefore, be required for interior decorating activity, like plastering, if it would affect the character of the structure. However, in order to clarify for owners and occupiers of protected structures exactly what works they are permitted to do without permission, they may request the local authority to indicate those works in a declaration. For example, a declaration could state that any works to the interior would not affect the character of the building and, therefore, would not require planning permission. Alternatively, in the case of very valuable interiors permission may be required where, for example, redecoration was being contemplated. Planning authorities will be required to issue the declarations within three months of a request. Provision has been made in the transitional arrangements to extend the time if a large number of requests for declarations is made when the Bill is enacted.

Special consideration is to be given to structures which are used for religious worship. Planning authorities will be obliged to request liturgical requirements and to consult the relevant Church authorities when issuing a declaration. The same will apply to a planning application affecting the interior of a protected church. Section 9 provides that it will be an offence to deliberately damage a protected structure, with fines of up to £1 million on indictment. Owners and occupiers will be under a duty to ensure that a protected structure is not endangered, either through their actions or through neglect. Section 10 provides that if a protected structure is endangered, planning authorities may issue a notice to the owner or occupier requiring works to be carried out. The planning authority may at its discretion assist the owner or occupier either financially or otherwise in carrying out the works.

Section 11 provides that the planning authority may require the owner or occupier of a protected structure to carry out works to restore the character of a protected building. This could include the removal of incongruous signs on a protected building or street, even if such signs were erected lawfully. The planning authority will pay the full cost of any work carried out under this section. Sections 22 to 29 give power to planning authorities to purchase a protected structure which is endangered, compulsorily if necessary, and set out the procedures to be followed if this happens.

Section 30 requires sanitary authorities, before issuing a dangerous buildings notice in relation to a protected building, to consider instead whether a notice to carry out works under this Bill or under the Derelict Sites Act would be more appropriate. This is not an attempt to circumscribe a sanitary authority's powers, merely to oblige them to consider the fact that they may be dealing with a protected building which should be preserved if possible.

Section 38 provides for transitional arrangements for buildings currently listed for protection or preservation under a development plan. These will automatically become protected under the Bill. However, owners and occupiers of these buildings will be consulted and they will be entitled to make representations to the planning authority regarding whether or not their buildings should remain as a protected structure.

This Bill marks a major advance in the way we preserve and look after the precious heritage of buildings which we are lucky to possess. It is a mark of our maturity as a society that there is widespread support for devoting some of our increased wealth to preserving our physical history for our own edification and for those who come after us. It also shows our commitment to sustainable development by encouraging the use and re-use of existing building stock so that those buildings which have been in use for many decades, or even centuries, continue in use for years to come, not as museum pieces but as buildings which adapt and change as society and life itself adapts and changes. I commend this historic and landmark Bill to the House.

Mr. Coogan

I welcome the Minister to the House. I welcome also this detailed Bill. This is my first opportunity as spokesperson for the Environment and Local Government to address the Minister.

I wish to address the Bill without going into specific details. I will go into the details of the Bill on Committee Stage. It would be impossible in the short time available to us today to discuss every aspect of the Bill. The Minister described architecture from ancient times as "the mother of the arts". More recently it was called "building politics". I agree with this change because it is important to understand the distinction between the two, and the distinction between that and other arts. While I have little experience as spokesperson on Local Government and the Environment, I have some experience in the history of building, having lectured for a number of years on the subject. I can define the difference between that and other forms of art. If one looks at a two-dimensional painting from the front, the artist tries to infer that there is depth in the painting. In sculpture there is the opportunity to look at it from outside. Architecture is different in that it is not just two-dimensional, it is three-dimensional and internal also. I welcome the fact that under the Bill we will be able to control the interiors as well as the exteriors of buildings. It is important to remember that the front of a building does not stand alone. The interior is often a reflection of the exterior. I welcome the Bill from that point of view.

The preamble to the Bill states that this commitment is contained in the Programme for Government. I believe its origin is slightly earlier, through the ratification of the Granada Convention in 1987. The then Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, ratified the instruments on 20 January 1997 in Spain. That is the filip which led to this Bill. I am not saying the accolades should not go to the present Government, but there is a great commitment in this country to our culture and past.

A number of aspects of that ratification are not included in the Bill. Some of the obligations of the Granada Convention include the maintenance of inventories — Dúchas is doing this at present, statutory protection measures — these are included in the Bill, financial and fiscal measures for the maintenance, conservation and restoration of architectural heritage within the limits of available budgets — in Europe there is always a constraint on things when available budgets are referred to. I will refer to this later regarding the number of people appointed to oversee this work and the adoption of integrated conservation policies which make conservation, promotion and enhancement of the architectural heritage a major feature of cultural, environmental and planning policies.

Other aspects include developing public awareness of the value of conserving our architectural heritage. Perhaps it is not appropriate to include this in the Bill. However, it should be emphasised through second level educational programmes. Third level students of civil or construction engineering or architecture are made aware of this. Part of a historic course should be to place proper emphasis on the significance of buildings of architectural importance. For example, when children visit this House on school tours they should know what to expect, not that this is just the Houses of Parliament. Another aspect is the promotion of training in conservation skills. This should be emphasised also. The Bill refers to people with those skills. When the inventory is completed and we have decided on landscapes, streetscapes and buildings, it will be necessary for continuity to have people with those skills in every local authority.

I would like to see the fostering of new uses for old buildings. The development of sponsorship by non-profit making associations in the field of architectural heritage and conservation should be accelerated. There may be ways of encouraging people to get involved, such as buying a famous painting and donating it to an art gallery. The exchange of information and expertise on architectural heritage and conservation policies and practices between parties to the convention is outside the remit of the Bill. However, it could be emphasised.

There is no doubt that there is a growing awareness among the public about our heritage. Very often most of those who write to Deputies, Senators and local authority members about the protection of buildings are well intentioned but have little experience or skills and do not know whether the projects are worthwhile or if they should proceed with them. If the inventory is complete, a judgment may have to be made against the protection of a building and then it can be decided whether local authorities are right. However, until now judgments were made on buildings and derelict sites that could not be preserved and we were asked to invest money in buildings which would be impossible to maintain.

The 1976 Act dealt with the preservation of buildings of architectural, artistic and historical interest and it is proposed to replace those provisions with buildings, including townscapes, of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social and technical interests. Those latter four interests are the major changes in the legislation. I am a little confused about them and I ask the Minister to explain them as I am not sure what the Department's interest is in regard to them.

For example, industrial architecture involves objects such as a mill race, which acted as a power source for electricity or grinders. The Minister may be too young to remember them but I recall them as a source of energy common to many parts of Ireland, particularly Galway, which was an early industrial city. They could be rebuilt and used as places of educational and scientific interest where students and young people could see the operation of belt systems driven by water. Investors who may have a parallel involvement in other energy sources might get involved and it could be worthwhile.

I have difficulty with the social aspect given that the word "social" covers all activities. I would prefer if it were defined more clearly in the Bill because it is open to misinterpretation. For example, I live in a village outside Galway city that has an old townhouse in which one of the tribes of Galway, the Blakes, lived. When I moved into the village 20 years ago, it had approximately 15 thatched cottages whereas it has two now. Historically, the landed gentry lived in the townhouse with the village immediately beside containing thatched cottages, which relates to the "social interest". The cottages unfortunately have disappeared to a large degree and the castle burned down but there is a possibility that it could be restored. People could be shown the village as an example of the great divide in the last century and as a reflection of our true history. Is that what is meant by the "social interest"? The scientific interest could relate to the mill race, to which I referred earlier. Will the Minister tease that out?

A number of years ago when I was a Member of the Lower House a recently widowed woman came to me with a huge problem. It related to a castle, or townhouse, on her land which was used as a piggery at the time. She was directed by the local authority to make it safe or knock it down. A crack ran up the side of the building and in order to make it safe she would have had to spend much money. She had four children and simply could not afford it. Therefore, the easiest option for her was to knock it down. Of course, when she went to do so she was told that she could not. She was then left in a quandary in that she could not knock it or rebuild it. An American made her an offer whereby he would take away the building bit by bit and then rebuild it but, of course, he was not allowed. That demonstrated the inconsistencies in the old Planning Act.

This Bill will provide opportunities for people or local authorities to step in and carry out the work in such situations provided, of course, they do not expect the owner of the property, who cannot afford to carry out the work, to carry the can for it. How can a local authority afford it? An American re-built the castle I mentioned, but that led to another problem. When she had rebuilt this beautiful castle, she found that dampness was creeping in and she had to plaster the outside of the building. I do not know how that would fit in under the Bill, but in order to make the castle habitable it had to be plastered and it lost its character.

I wish to refer to another aspect of townscapes and curtilage. Long Walk in Galway is much painted but it has nothing to offer architecturally, socially, scientifically or under any other heading except by being encompassed as a painting. Each house along it was coloured slightly differently and the levels of each roof are slightly different. However, a huge structure was allowed to develop behind it, correctly so under planning laws, which dwarfs the townscape. If this Bill is passed and Long Walk accepted as a townscape, will the developer, who is within his rights, be prevented from building at such a height behind the street?

Another question that arises is that the developer may be in an area where there are tax concessions for development and he will find that he must apply to the local authority to go ahead with the project. Under the proposed Bill, he may have to wait up to three months or even longer and that delay, coupled with that normally associated with planning, through formal objections, could put the project outside the planning deadline or delay it so much that the developer's money would be tied up and he could end up saying that he could not afford it. These issues must be teased out.

I will refer to specific sections on Committee Stage when I will have a better opportunity to tease out the issues I raised. However, I completely agree with the Minister in regard to the dangerous building notice provision in section 20. It is a great step forward and at least allows an objective decision to be made regarding whether a building is dangerous or can be repaired. Sections 22 to 29 give power to planning authorities to purchase a protected structure which is endangered, if necessary by order, and set out the procedures to be followed if this happens. The cost of this might be low in a small town but in a large city such as Galway, Limerick or Dublin, the cost might be extraordinarily high. If a local authority was to apply a compulsory purchase order, its £3.9 million allocation for next year would be gone. These sections need to be discussed to explain who will pay for these orders but my understanding is that the local authorities will bear the burden of the cost.

I am delighted with the thrust of Bill but there are aspects which I want to tease out. I want to see the social and scientific interests more clearly defined. However, I welcome the Bill and look forward to discussing it further with the Minister.

Mr. D. Kiely

I welcome the Minister and compliment him on this legislation, which is long overdue. A great deal of damage was done in the past. If legislation such as this had been introduced many years ago much of our heritage, damaged more through ignorance than neglect, would have been saved. I compliment the many people who donated their estates and historical buildings to the State. The State protected the buildings and many of them are now tourist attractions. Muckross House in Killarney is an example of an historic building which was taken over by the Office of Public Works. It attracts thousands of tourists annually. In this legislation the Minister is trying to protect many other such buildings.

I also compliment the Minister for removing the term "listed" and substituting the term "protected". That is a step in the right direction. I compliment the Government for honouring its commitment in An Action Programme for the Millennium by introducing this legislation. It has been long anticipated.

People who had historical buildings on their land often did not realise their heritage value or were unaware of their history. In many cases, when they could not repair the buildings they had no option but to knock them down. Such buildings can never be replaced. We owe it to future generations to protect a land that is steeped in history and the many buildings of historical value located in remote parts of the country.

I am glad the Minister has involved the local authorities in dealing with this issue and that he will make the necessary resources and staff available to them. That will be necessary to carry out research and to compile a comprehensive list of protected buildings.

The Minister is correct in saying that there have been serious lapses in protecting buildings of historical importance. It is also true that once a lapse has been made, it cannot be rectified later as we have seen time and time again. I am anxious to get more information on many sections of the Bill but I will wait until Committee Stage when the Minister can discuss them in more detail.

The aim of the Bill is the important matter on this Stage. I was once the owner of an old jail or bridewell in my native village of Tarbert. The architectural detail in the building was unbelievable and I was glad to offer it to the local development association which spent an enormous amount of money restoring it. If that building had been lost, local people would have lost a valuable example of how old jails were built and operated. Local communities which carry out this type of restoration work deserve our compliments. They collect money and use their own resources to fund their work.

In the Bill, the Minister introduces a different type of structure to take responsibility for protected buildings. There are many buildings throughout the country which should be protected, particularly in remote areas where one often sees round towers, beehive huts and other structures of historical value. The provisions of the Bill also apply to urban structures of historical value. Townhouses, for example, might be the birthplace or former home of historically important Irish figures. These places are of historical value for the future and it is important that they are protected.

The legislation provides that any work which would affect the character of a building will require planning permission. That is only right and proper. The Minister recognises that this proposal could be onerous for the owners and occupiers of protected buildings so the Bill provides that they will be entitled to a declaration from the planning authority which would determine the type of work the authority believes would affect the character of the building. That is an important provision. It ensures there will be consultation between the planning authorities and the owners of protected properties. If an owner cannot afford to restore a protected property, the local authority will be able to take on that task and even take over ownership of the building with the permission of the owner.

For many years countries such as Italy, Spain, Germany and France have attached great importance to protecting their historical buildings. Structures that have survived since the time of the Roman Empire, even parts of columns, are preserved while in Ireland we have tended to destroy historical structures, even if they date from the first inhabitants on the island.

I recently visited one of the Skelligs Islands off the coast of Kerry and saw the old monastic remains that have been preserved. They are a credit to the people who undertook the task of preservation. If those remains had been destroyed, it would have been shameful. It is important to protect heritage structures and to pass them on in good condition to future generations.

I welcome the Bill and I compliment the Minister on taking positive action on this important matter. I am also pleased that he has involved the local authorities, which will mean a hands-on approach. If important buildings are identified, it is better that their preservation is carried out at local level rather than being directed from a central office in Dublin where the staff cannot keep an eye on every protected building. Local authorities are better placed to protect such buildings.

I look forward to discussing the Bill in detail on Committee Stage.

Mr. Cosgrave

Fine Gael will support this Bill. Any legislation relating to the planning process in local authorities, particularly with regard to preserving buildings of artistic, architectural or historical interest, is welcome. I hope the Bill will have a speedy passage although I foresee difficulties arising with regard to costings and how the legislation operates on the ground.

Will planners in local authorities work in conjunction with conservationists or other professionals who are qualified in this area? Obviously some buildings will be of value because their structure might date from a certain time and there might only be a limited number of such buildings left. Other buildings may be less structurally valuable but have extra historical interest because of who was born or lived there.

The Minister will know that local authority planning offices are very busy, particularly with complaints about how areas are being developed, perhaps without planning permission. The process of warning notices can be tardy. A planner in my authority told me so many decisions have to be made before the end of the year. The office staff are flat out with the applications before them at this time of year, applications for ordinary house extensions which have to be approved, larger developments which may need environmental impact statements or further consideration and others which have been in the pipeline for some time for which further information is required.

Planning officials are under pressure. Residents might call about a structure, but the legal process, putting up a warning notice, felling trees and so on, is slow. If a person wants to destroy a building it is easier for them to do it themselves than for the local authority to keep the process going.

The Minister is giving extra money to local authorities but, when examining the operation of the Act, he should remember there are many rundown buildings of great historical value which could be renovated for the purposes of preservation and tourism. There must be an acceleration of the operations of local authorities. Planners are under a great deal of pressure with the healthy state of the construction industry, with an ever increasing amount of applications for extensions.

A member of An Bord Pleanála said recently that the number of appeals, successful appeals in particular, has increased substantially. Whether it be a major structure or an extension which interferes with the conditions of a neighbour, the legislation should allow for opportunities for individuals who can be affected by construction but who do not have the financial wherewithal to make an appeal successfully.

The preparation of development plans by local authorities is an important issue. According to certain scribes, one would think that local authority members take it upon themselves to start rezoning or planning without any regard for the law. It is a statutory function which is subject to guidance of the planners and representations made by interested groups. In light of what has been written at times, it is important to note this is a statutory function of the local authority and that plans are displayed and representations received from the public. People who are elected are closer to what is happening than those writing articles.

We all welcome this Bill, particularly as it relates to preservation and maintenance of buildings of great historical significance. Senator Norris has been a tremendous supporter of the preservation of certain buildings, but the Minister will know that when buildings are being preserved, thousands of pounds can be sunk into their restoration and maintenance. It can be a bottomless pit. We all have favourite areas but buildings are not preserved by doing nothing.

I wish the Minister and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, well in what they intend to do. I support the Bill.

Mr. O'Brien

I welcome the introduction of this Bill and I compliment the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, on it. This Bill will be welcomed by all as it will safeguard many of our fine historic buildings for generations to come while allowing them to be developed for use in the modern age in a planned way which will not damage their basic structure or beauty. Many of them are in the Minister's county of Meath. In Ireland we are fortunate to have many fine buildings from previous centuries. Their beauty is magnificent and they attract tourists. It is very important that they are protected. This Bill places a clear responsibility on the planning authorities to create a record of buildings to be protected and to preserve the character of places and townscapes of interest.

The Government and the Minster must be congratulated on the supporting measures in the Bill which will greatly assist the owners and occupants of protected buildings. A new scheme of grants for protected buildings is being introduced in 1999 at a cost of £3.9 million which will be administered by the principal local authorities. This is most welcome and the Minister deserves our congratulations for securing this money.

Owners and occupants of protected buildings will be entitled to a declaration from the planning authorities which will determine the type of work the planning authorities consider would affect the character of the buildings. The administration of the grants scheme and the drawing up of the declaration of work will require technical experience by the local authority. The Government is allocating £300,000 towards this service in 1999. This is also very welcome. It may seem small when divided across the country but it is a step in the right direction and we have to start somewhere.

While it is necessary to assist those who want to carry out work on protected buildings, this Bill also gives planning authorities power to direct works to be undertaken to preserve and restore our protected buildings. It makes it a criminal offence to damage a protected building. There is a substantial fine for damaging such a building.

This Bill will bring a new era and attitudes in the protection of old buildings which are very much part of our heritage. The initiatives in the Bill show the commitment of the Minster and the Government to protect and secure the future of our buildings in a practical way. I support the Bill and I congratulate the Minister for introducing it.

Mr. O'Dowd

This is an important Bill. Conservationists and people in general want it. In Drogheda and other places we are fed up seeing our architectural heritage being demolished, sometimes in the middle of the night and usually by people who only have an interest in making a profit. I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on it. It is very timely and I am not critical of any part of it. Obviously people would like to see parts of it strengthened but the core is that the Government and the State are saying they want to protect our built environment and keep it in perpetuity for future generations. This Bill makes it more difficult for people to demolish listed buildings and protects our built environment for our children and our children's children. It is important that is done.

When the Drogheda Grammar School was illegally demolished in the middle of the night approximately ten years ago, the local authority did not take immediate legal action against those who did it. A very good friend of mine, Eddie O'Doherty, and I took a High Court action under section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, to force actions through the courts on those who illegally demolished the building. The sole basis for their action was gain. They hoped that if the listed building was demolished in the middle of the night — which it was — they would get away with it. However, they did not reckon on Eddie O'Doherty, the County Louth Archaeological Society and me.

We fought a legal action over three long years and must have appeared before nearly every judge of the High Court in those days. If necessary to we would have gone to the Supreme Court because the issue was very important. The question was as follows. If a building was listed in a development as worthy of preservation and a dangerous building notice had been served, could the owners serve notice on the local authority at 5.30 p.m. on Friday, demolish the building over the weekend and get away with it? The answer is they did not. The court ordered those who demolished the building to sift and sort the rubble by hand and safely store anything which could be used again in rebuilding Drogheda Grammar School. Even though that action occurred a long time ago, I am proud to say that, as I speak tonight, that building is being reconstructed. I am very thankful for the court order and the decisions of An Bord Pleanála. In the action on the demolition of Drogheda Grammar School, An Bord Pleanála were very comprehensive in what they insisted must go back up. Unfortunately the facade was the only part of the building which was listed but it is going back up handmade brick by handmade brick because that is what was knocked down. All the cut stone which could be reused is being sorted and carefully located for reuse in the building.

After that successful High Court action, the Oireachtas increased the fine on those who demolished listed buildings from the £10,000 maximum fine imposed on the company by the Circuit Criminal Court in Dublin. As a result of their action there was also a criminal prosecution. It was not an easy battle. Personally I was unhappy with the actions of both the local authority and the then Department of the Environment, not because of what they did but because of what they did not do. Two ordinary individuals went to the courts to defend the rights of our community. The powers at that time did not deem the law to be strong enough to take the action we took. We took it on our own shoulders and did it successfully. I am very happy with this Bill as it strengthens the legislation.

I note the powers given to planning authorities to purchase an endangered protected structure, if necessary compulsorily. We wanted to purchase Drogheda Grammar School, and the Minister of the day — I forget which side he was from — said we could buy it but that we would have to raise our own funds. The reality was that there would have to be local funding to purchase the building. I am glad this legislation is now in place.

There must be a financial incentive to a developer to keep and restore listed buildings. This is very important. It should be a pleasure to own or live in a listed building and not a financial noose around one's neck. Any funding spent on maintenance, upkeep or restoration of the building should be 100 per cent tax free. There should be grants and other incentives if the building is deemed to be of national importance, especially if it is on the list of regional or national buildings. Owners of such buildings should not be at a loss financially and, if at all possible, should receive some benefit provided money is spent developing the buildings.

The subject of the interiors of listed buildings is often raised. I know development plans vary from county to county, but County Louth is listing interiors more and more, not just facades. Important though it is, preserving a building's facade is only going a small way towards preserving its ethos. One should try to retain the shape and materials of the interior also, such as panelling. A big loss to Drogheda Grammar School was that the wonderful oak panelling, which had been there since 1730, was spirited away in the middle of the night.

I welcome this Bill. The Minister is taking firm, positive action to protect everybody's heritage. I am sure the National Heritage Council as well as historical and conservation societies welcome it. The action that I and the late Eddie O'Doherty took will never have to be taken again, and this Bill goes a long way towards protecting that environment. I pay tribute to Mr. John Redmill, a consultant and eminent historical architect, for his work on the Drogheda Grammar School and for other bodies such as the National Heritage Council. We need people of his calibre to identify what must be done. People like him have the expertise, knowledge of and love for these buildings. This Bill is about keeping what we love for children of the future. The gombeen man is out to make a profit at everyone's expense and does not give a damn about heritage, culture or art, but his day is done because of this Bill. That is a good thing, and we cannot have too much of it.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Henry)

I congratulate Senator O'Dowd on what he did in Drogheda.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

Fáiltím roimh an Aire agus an Bhille agus tréalaím leis freisin de bharr na hoibre san. Is cinnte nach aitheantas amháin atá i gceist da n-oidhreacht ach tá cosaint i gceist freisin. Ní amháin san ach go mbeidh airgead, comhairle agus treoir phoifisiúnta ar fáil. Tá sé soiléir go bhfuil an-mhacnamh déanta ar an mBille seo agus táim cinnte go bhfuil san déanta ó thaobh taithí. In an-chuid slí is féidir a bheith an-bhróach as cuid de na rudaí atá tar éis tárlú sa tír seo gan fhios dúinn. Go minic, go luath ar maidin nó mar sin a thárla an raic agus thuigeamar ansan an chailliúint ní amháin dúinne ach do na sluaite atá romhainn.

It is evident from the Minister's presentation that this is far reaching legislation which is intended to mirror the requirements arising out of sad experiences here. At the same time, given the renewed confidence in ourselves as a people, we are all aware of the evocative aspect of local history.

In this respect I compliment local historical societies throughout the country. They have not only kept a watching brief, but their many journals have also educated us. People often pass a particularly important building without being aware of its significance, but a historical society brings it to life and focuses attention on it. That ensures a protective attitude towards the building from the local community. That is not always sufficient, and it is important that protection is legal in nature as well.

It is evident that local authorities have an important role to play in this Bill, which is as it should be. Local communities are often the foot soldiers who are prepared to be supportive and vigilant as well as to raise necessary funds. I remember being in Wexford recently the day after a building that meant a lot to Wexford was destroyed. I am not sure if it was listed — it is possible it was not — but it was the home of P.J. McCall, one of the foremost ballad makers of Ireland and Wexford. He wrote most of the songs about Wexford. I met those who brought the news and never saw people as upset, angry and agitated. They took that building for granted, although it was in private ownership, which is where difficulties arise. We must educate people at local level to realise that we should not take things for granted.

We are entering a new millennium and new buildings are being proposed, but the buildings of the past are probably our greatest legacy. They tell us something about ourselves and, more importantly, tell others about us also. They remind us of our great civilisations. We are often credited with having saved civilisation, so when people visit we do not have to think in terms of size and skyscrapers. We can think of our heritage, and these buildings are reminders of that heritage.

They are not reminders in a dead sense; they are very inspiring in themselves. We will never be able to calculate how our poets, songwriters, writers and music makers have been inspired by them. I have often listened to composers and poets talk about what inspired them to write certain pieces, and that inspiration was often what they found to be evocative in national treasures. I genuinely wonder what the spike in O'Connell Street will tell us about ourselves in 100 or 1,000 years. I am sure some people find it pleasing, but are we being fair to ourselves by not questioning that? At a minimum the people should have been given a say in this. If three or four of the entries had been put on display it would have given people an opportunity to choose. There is no point telling people they should see a given thing in any monument. It should be there and they must be inspired to see it; there is no difficulty in this regard with historical buildings.

I am glad the Minister has been given such a wide remit with this Bill. If there was a narrow definition we would lose some part of our heritage and in ten years, we would bemoan that fact when we realised its value. A very wide definition gives us the opportunity to consider various aspects of building. I do not believe every building should be a Rock of Cashel; it might often be something as simple as a humble home to which an important story attaches.

Some years ago, a cultural centre dedicated to Brian Ború was built at the foot of the Rock of the Cashel. A particularly fluent Texan visited the site while the work was in progress. He admired the magnificent timber work and spoke to the carpenters. Pointing to the Rock of Cashel itself, he said "that building on the hill is a con job". That comment illustrated that his understanding of antiquity totally differed from ours.

Our antiquity is similar to Egyptian, Chinese and Japanese antiquity. A major survey carried out by Bord Fáilte monitored various tourist pursuits in Ireland. Visits to national monuments were first on the list, accounting for in the region of 67 per cent of pursuits. At a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Heritage and the Irish Language earlier today I pointed out that two of the other six pursuits also related to heritage. We are obviously admired as a people and there is an obvious admiration for our antiquity. The fact people visit our national monuments is a very important factor in our international standing. That is how we will be judged, although it might not always be how the balance sheet works out. When we enter into trade with other countries there will be a definite spin-off from our heritage status.

While legislation is important we must work in partnership in this area. In the past, national school teachers, particularly those in rural Ireland, took time out to provide their pupils with a rounded education. They informed them about their environment and focused on the history, culture and art of their local areas. It saddens me that I do not see that practice to the same degree today; people will travel to visit the Leaning Tower of Pisa and the Great Wall of China but will not be aware of something very important in their own area. Schools and communities alike should be encouraged to look at the treasures in their midst, not for purely mercenary reasons but in order to recognise their inspirational element. I compliment the Minister and welcome the proposed partnership between communities, statutory bodies and Government. The conservation officers contemplated under the Bill could play an important role in informing and motivating communities to adopt a united approach to protected buildings and heritage in general.

Mr. Norris

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. My contribution will be somewhat breathless as I have just returned from Warsaw. Perhaps that is a good starting point. Last night, I walked around the old city which was completely destroyed by the Nazis during World War II. In the immediate aftermath of the war, in spite of all the suffering, the city was wonderfully reconstructed. It has been nominated as a United Nations heritage area and will be afforded special protections.

I was attending a human rights conference and stayed in an old palace which had been lovingly reconstructed in cement. The royal palace in Budapest, which boasted one of the most superb baroque interiors in Europe, was completely flattened and rebuilt in cement by the Communists. The job is a mere facade; nothing remains of the original palace except some grim Stalinist offices.

The Polish Prime Minister, on his recent visit to Ireland, requested to visit North Great George's Street, particularly the James Joyce Cultural Centre there. He wanted to visit the centre not only because he has a cultivated interest in the works of James Joyce — translated into Polish by a Mr. Slomczynski who doubles as Poland's leading detective novelist — but because he was interested in the manner in which the building had been preserved. A great deal of the plaster work on the magnificent ceiling in the centre was carried out by Michael Stapleton who also worked on the ceiling of this House. The restoration work on the ceiling in No. 35 gives the lie to the oft heard statement that people had talent in the past, but do not have it any longer. People can carry out such work if the necessary commitment, expertise and investment are available.

My reference to North Great George's Street shows how parochial I am. I recall Frank O'Connor saying that it was better to be parochial than provincial. If one was provincial, one was considered limited, whereas if one was parochial, it meant that by knowing one's own parish, one knew everyone else's. I am sure the Minister is aware that North Great George's Street figured to some extent in the development of this policy. I recall the announcement of the Fianna Fáil policy at a meeting in North Great George's Street and I also recall this legislation being heralded at a meeting in a beautifully restored house across the road from my own. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands are extremely sensitive to the need to preserve these kinds of buildings.

The Minister pointed to our good tradition of preserving ancient buildings, such as round towers, abbeys, cathedrals, tower houses and so on, and our lack of a real concern for domestic architecture, great houses, 18th century squares and brick built terraces. While this is understandable historically and culturally, we have grown up and matured and no longer seek to punish those buildings for the supposed crimes of the people who lived in them. There is no doubt that some of those people were arrogant blackguards but it would be a pity to punish our own inheritance because of people who died long ago.

A city's soul resides, partly at least, in its built environment. I want to comment on the issue of environmental impact studies and the manner in which we have been recently rebuked by the European Commission because of our negligence in this area. It is very important that in a city like Dublin, as in Warsaw, we retain the human scale. There is one grotesque building in Warsaw — the gift of Joseph Stalin — which distorts the skyline and is a real blister on the landscape. Its only advantage is that it offers an extremely good view of the city. That lack of scale is one of my hesitations in regard to the proposed "skewer by the whore" on O'Connell Street. I am concerned that its enormous scale may be used as a reference point to permit the building of other high rise buildings in the city. We must be very careful not to allow that.

I am also concerned about the proposed alteration of the only surviving real tennis court at Earlsfort Terrace to a small concert hall. I know the National Concert Hall and its environs well and I know there is a need for a small recital chamber. However, it should be possible to find another place for it.

The Minister hit the nail on the head when he referred to modern, robust, comprehensive legislation, dedicated financial resources and the employment of adequate expertise and knowledge. The Bill seeks to provide these elements and it will be a number of years before we can evaluate how they work in practice. A sum of £45 million has been allocated but it will not be enough in overall terms. It will be enough for us to see how the legislation works in practice. Comparatively small amounts of money can make the difference in allowing a project to work.

The Minister said

Local authorities have been criticised in the past for widely divergent approaches to listing buildings for protection in their development plans. Some local authorities have comprehensive lists; some have none.

I agree. However, some of the local authorities that had lists did not make practical use of them. The legislation had little teeth, so to speak. The House knows that ink on paper never kept a building up — one may have all the legislation one wants but if it is not operated vigorously it is of no use. Dublin Corporation already has many of the powers in this Bill and it could take certain buildings into public ownership. It should have done so more comprehensively. I am aware that one or two have been taken in ownership under the local authority powers but the powers should be used more aggressively in the future.

For 21 years I have lived next door to a building which had some of the most superb ceilings in Dublin and beautiful fireplaces. They have been systematically destroyed and the house is collapsing. The owners of the building have a notorious record, owning dozens of buildings in a similar state of collapse. I have dragged them through the courts and paid for the legal action but, at the end of the day nothing has happened. One of the parties involved has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment and I do not wish that on her as she is elderly. She has been fined £30,000 and I do not wish that on her either. She has served neither sentence and the building still decays. It is a tragedy.

Across the road there is another building owned by a professional man — a consultant in cosmetic surgery. His business is appearance but the outside and inside of the building have been pillaged of their important features. It has become a Rachmanite network of bedsitters. It is appalling that this should be allowed to happen on a street in which every building is List 1.

I welcome the employment of conservation officers, which is an excellent move. About ten years ago I spoke at the annual meeting of the Conference of Conservation Officers of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in York and I felt a little ashamed of our record — a little ashamed that we did not really have such a professional structure in Ireland. I welcome its establishment. However, I do not wish to decry the work of people in Dublin Corporation and in voluntary groups who have monitored what Frank McDonald called "the destruction of Dublin".

I note the Minister referred to deletions from the listing. We need to be careful in this regard and I would like to know more about the reasons a building would be deleted from the listing. I hope that whichever group makes such deletions it would not be amenable to political pressure, in particular that exercised by commercial sources. If that happened it would be regretted greatly.

Section 11 provides a requirement to be put in place for owners to restore buildings and section 12 introduces the idea of purchase by the State authorities. I note there is a question of provision in development plans for special streetscapes which is very important. Preserving one building when the surrounding context is allowed to decay is fatal. One must consider the context.

Without wishing to be negative I wish to refer to a note from Lancefort, a company of which the Minister and his advisers will be aware. There are mixed views about it but it has done some good work — it is a committed company with expertise in this area. It raised the issues of the HARP area in Dublin and the Temple Bar and College Green hotels with the EU Commission. The response from the Commission to the complaint, which makes interesting and rather regrettable reading, is summarised in a press release which states:

Not being satisfied with Ireland's response to the inquiries which it made concerning the complaint, on the application of Directive 85/337/EEC (environmental impact assessment) to Ireland's architectural heritage and the related role of Community finds, the Commission recently notified a Letter of Formal Notice under Article 169 of the EC Treaty advising the Irish authorities that it considers that the Directive has been breached in a number of respects in relation to urban development projects and hotel complexes in Ireland.

As regards urban development projects, the Commission took note of your detailed submissions on the Temple Bar project and the HARP (Historical Area Rejuvenation Project). These are not treated as covered by the Irish legislation. Moreover, the component developments which contribute to such projects do not appear to be treated as covered either. [In other words, we are not operating our own existing legislation and that is very unfortunate. ] The net effect is that, for environmentally significant urban development projects in existing core historic areas in Ireland, the Directive appears to have been left without a meaning in practice. The Letter of Formal Notice takes issue with this.

As regards hotel complexes, the Commission notes the evidence you submitted in relation to the hotel development proposed on a site bounded by Fleet Street, Westmoreland Street and College Street in Dublin, and in particular the failure to carry out an EIA notwithstanding the landmark setting and the demolition, gutting or mere shell-retention of four List 1 buildings (i.e. buildings enjoying the highest level of cultural heritage recognition by the responsible local authority), three List 2 buildings and three buildings in a conservation area.

In particular, the Commission sought clarification on the way in which the Planning Appeals Board determines whether a sub-threshold EIA is required in relation to possible effects on the architectural heritage. It also sought confirmation that both Dublin Corporation and the Planning Appeals Board considered the likely significance of the development in terms of architectural heritage for purposes of determining whether a sub-threshold EIA was necessary, together with a contemporaneous record of their consideration.

The clarification and record have not been provided and, on the evidence available to date, the Commission has taken the view that the provision for EIA in the Irish legislation for hotel complexes in existing urban areas is not accompanied by the necessary interpretation and administrative practice to make it systematically effective, and that Ireland has not therefore taken the measures necessary to comply with the results required by the Directive for this project category, i.e. the submission of environmentally significant hotel complexes to EIA. That is a strong rebuke. I do not wish to be negative or awkward about the Bill. However, even as we celebrate this Bill there are things wrong in this area.

There are delicious but sometimes painful ironies in this subject. I have fought for over 20 years for North Great George's Street. I fought a publicly acknowledged proposal of the city authorities to demolish almost the entire street. We saved it. We did not get much help then, but we have had help since from successive Governments, particularly this one. We have also had help from Dublin Corporation, which is often attacked unfairly. Although it has done some regrettable things in the past, it has shown goodwill and energy in this area under the previous and present city managers.

I am now redoing the top two floors of my house and have run into planning problems. It is a wonderful irony that having seen devastation all around I now receive a lash from the law which I always encouraged the authorities to introduce. That is the way democracy works. We are negotiating the matter.

Acting Chairman

The Senator does not want a lash from the Chair.

Mr. Norris

That would be a delicious thrill which I could only anticipate eagerly.

It is necessary to understand the whole environment. Like all great Dublin streets, North Great George's Street had a stable lane and mews houses at the back. These houses were converted aggressively into factory complexes or discotheques, neither of which was appropriate. The zoning followed this trend and someone on my side of the street who wished to rejuvenate one of these buildings for dwelling purposes was refused permission recently because it was zoned for office and industrial purposes. That must change. We must continue the policy, also supported by this Government, of making a living city and bringing people back.

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which marks a significant step forward. I compliment the Government for living up to the promises made at election time at a press conference in North Great George's Street. It is now delivering the goods, perhaps not all the goods but an important instalment.

Mr. Mooney

I am sure we are indebted to the pilot who landed Senator Norris safely and in time to give us that interesting dissertation which wandered around North Great George's Street. To use sporting parlance, he started strongly, wobbled a little in the middle — my eyes glazed over when he started referring to EU Directives and the Lancefort judgment — but he finished strongly again. He has shaken my confidence in the elements of the Bill which I thought would strengthen rather than weaken the subject under debate. Dublin Corporation is perhaps the most cash rich local authority and can afford to take over listed buildings, unlike my humble county which has many buildings of architectural and historic merit but not a brass farthing to do this work. I therefore wonder whether it is much use putting this legislation in place if it will not be enforced.

The thread running through my thought process in approaching this Bill was the Beara peninsula in west Cork, from where my wife comes. I have spent many happy hours pottering around the ruins of Dunboy Castle, near Castletownbere. Before reaching the castle one meets an historic building which, sadly, was burnt out by the IRA in the early twenties. It belonged to the Puxley family, who were made internationally famous by Daphne Du Maurier in her book Hungry Hill, which was set in Beara and Castletownbere. The building has been allowed to fall into disrepair. I have no idea who owns it, and my wife informs me that the locals are not sure either. Surely this is a building of national importance which is part of our heritage but was punished, as Senator Norris rightly said, for the crimes of those who lived in it. It is neglected and derelict, a sad comment not only on those responsible for it but on this country.

I single out that example because I know it but there are many more. In The Irish Times yesterday I read about Moore Hall, home of John Moore. The journalist said he had been crowned King of Connacht by General Humbert but, for her benefit and in the interest of historical accuracy, Humbert's decision was democratic — Moore was elected President of Connacht. I was disappointed that the journalist did not discover that in her research because it is an important distinction; the French Revolution was about egalitarianism, not royalism. That reference ruined the article for me.

With the consent and help of Coillte, Mayo County Council will take over this building and is launching a fund raising campaign to restore it to its former glory. This is as it should be and I was particularly pleased because the Moores of Moore Hall resonate throughout the history of Connacht, although judging by the article one would get the impression that the rest of us in the province are philistines and never heard of John Moore or what he and his successors did. He and his family were fine Nationalists and it is ironic that, according to the article, it was Éamon de Valera who ordered the burning of the building at the height of the Civil War in 1923, to prevent the Free State forces from hoarding arms in the house. That seems a flimsy basis for burning an historic building, particularly one which housed such a distinguished family as the Moores, but I am going by the account in the newspaper. However, given the historical inaccuracy in other parts of the piece, I am not sure I should quote from it.

I welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. The Minister was quoted in The Irish Times yesterday as saying our record of preservation in this area left much to be desired, and he is right. Why has it taken so long for this legislation to come before the Houses? Senator Norris said he was embarrassed ten years ago because we did not have conservation officers. Like him I have a deep and abiding interest in history and our historical inheritance and nothing shames me as much as the burning of these wonderful houses across the country, often for no other reason than a grudge held by mavericks who set themselves up as the pseudo-IRA or protectors of the republican heritage. Having said that, hindsight has 20-20 vision and I, no more than anyone in this time, cannot know what they felt at that time. It was at the end of a period of colonialism and I too might have gone out with a burning torch because of something done to my family or community by those whom Senator Norris kindly referred to as blackguards — I could think of stronger words.

Now that this legislation is on its way to being passed, I hope its provisions will be enforced and that we will not be just paying lip service, as seems to have been the case to date judging by Senator Norris' experience. I bow to his expertise in this area and admire his determination over many years to preserve historic buildings. If he has had that experience in Dublin, I shudder to think that local authorities across the country may similarly shirk their responsibilities in this regard. For instance, who is responsible for the former Puxley house in Beara? As a result of this Bill, will those responsible or the local authority — in this case, Cork County Council — be compelled to do something about the building?

The same is true of many other buildings. In my home county, Leitrim, Carrick-on-Shannon Courthouse has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 1994 the Office of Public Works declared the building unsafe and, as a result, Leitrim County Council and its staff, including the judicial administration, had to move out. It was discovered the building was in danger of collapse; it had been poorly built in 1820. It was the centre of the administration of British justice from that time on. It was taken over by the new State in the 1920s and continued to function as a courthouse and administration centre of Leitrim County Council. It has an affection in the hearts of people in the county, particularly those living in Carrick-on-Shannon.

A former member of the planning authority, who was attached to the council, was quoted as saying at a council meeting at the height of the controversy that the building had no architectural or historic merit whatsoever, that it was little more than a bunch of stones that were badly built and that it should be taken down. That is what started the local controversy. The people of the area, and I support their view, felt they should not lose this historic building. There are very few public buildings in County Leitrim; we should be building them instead of trying to knock them down.

A certain sum of money has been allocated to this project and the roof has been replaced.

However, the building is still not habitable. Another sum of £150,000 was allocated by the International Fund for Ireland in the early 1990s for the curtilage, which is very modern in contrast to the building itself.

Under the terms of this Bill, will the local authority be funded and resourced to ensure the preservation of this building so that it can become a living entity and used in a context other than its historic one? I would not like to see this building collapse; I would like to see something done with it. I am hopeful that sections in this legislation will help in this regard, for example, the reference to the allocation of £5 million. I welcome that sum but I am not sure it will go very far — I would be interested to know how this money will be expended. Perhaps we can return to this matter on Committee Stage.

The Bill also states that local authorities are being provided with £300,000 per annum to assist them. Is that £300,000 per local authority? I hardly think so. It is. It will cost £300,000 to fix the roof in Carrick-on-Shannon and it is being suggested that this sum will be of use to local authorities around the country. I will be interested to hear how the Minister intends spending this money.

The Bill is overall, as the Minister said, a landmark piece of legislation which is to be welcomed. However, I must add the caveat that, to echo Senator Norris, I hope it is not a matter of passing legislation simply for the sake of it.

Mr. Connor

I have not prepared anything to say on the Bill but I am quite interested in this whole area. I welcome the Bill which is a badly needed and long awaited first step towards the protection of buildings of architectural, if not historical, interest.

Ireland was dotted with some wonderful houses of architectural interest. Some of the finest architects of the 17th and 18th centuries designed and built houses all over this country, many of which were great estate houses. Most of these have been lost. Sadly, a Government agency played a greater part in the destruction of these buildings than any other individual body; this agency was the Irish Land Commission, and possibly the Congested Districts Boards which it replaced. Many of the great estates in this country were eventually redistributed by the Irish Land Commission. For example, Frenchpark House in my village was a beautiful 17th century Jacobean building, which was very rare in Ireland. It was built in 1667 with some later additions. It was destroyed in 1952. It shell stood until the early 1960s when it was dynamited to become the base for the building of a factory. Believe it or not, when it was dynamited people were there to celebrate its total destruction and wiping off the face of the earth because, to them, it represented something which was hostile and alien and part of the land war. That was a great pity but we have grown up a lot in recent years. However, the tragedy is the amount of our architectural heritage which has been destroyed and lost. It is unforgivable.

Whole streets have been lost in this city. Dublin used to be called the second city of the British Empire, which meant that, architecturally, it was only equalled by London out of all the cities over which Britain had an influence. One area in which the British exercised a good influence was that of architecture and the development of streetscapes in towns and cities. However, many of the lovely streetscapes of this city have been lost.

Until a few years ago, there were some surviving Georgian streetscapes which were falling down. Senator Norris spoke about North Great George's Street, which is a fine example, but there are other examples in that area of Dublin which have been lost in relatively recent years. However, the urban renewal schemes, which were introduced in the 1980s, have reached out to protect many of these streets from total dereliction and to prevent the loss of buildings of great architectural interest in this city. An enormous number of facades have been saved as a result.

I am delighted the Bill provides for internal alterations as all the emphasis in the past was on trying to save the facades of buildings. Under the Bill, if an owner or occupier wishes to make internal alterations he must have planning permission, and there will be a strict code in regard to the protection of the original character of the building. The interiors of many fine houses in this city and in towns have been destroyed by the division of rooms into bedsits and so on. Beautiful ceilings have been destroyed and partitions have been placed in the most inappropriate places. Damage has been done to original interiors which can never be repaired. However, I am delighted that, under the provisions of this Bill, that can no longer happen as any internal alterations must be the subject of strict planning permission.

There are still quite a number of very interesting 18th and 19th century large farm-houses throughout the country, varying from moderate to quite significant architectural interest. The problem experienced by people who own these houses is the cost of carrying out repair work, particularly now that the planning laws will require them to carry out any alterations strictly in accordance with the new regulations which are to be laid down and in keeping with the original character of the house, as far as that is possible. That is very costly.

It is unfair to put that requirement on such occupiers or owners without offering them financial assistance, particularly as we are asking such people to preserve the architectural heritage of the country. These buildings become more precious with every year that passes. There is a vague reference in the Bill to the provision of funding, but the amount of money appears to be quite small — no doubt, we will find out all about it on Committee Stage. We need an absolute commitment that the State will provide financial assistance for people who happen to own a property of unique or interesting architectural character and who wish to preserve and improve it or to carry out essential reconstruction work to it.

The Department of the Environment and Local Government or the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands should have architectural advisers who would provide free advice to the owners of such properties who wish to carry out improvements or repairs to them. They should also be offered a financial incentive.

Many owners of such houses will say they want to move out of them because of the difficulties of maintaining and heating them. It is often more attractive for them to move out of these houses and build a modern bungalow, allowing the heritage property to fall into rack and ruin. That has happened in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of instances around the country.

I appreciate the fact that the planning stage is the first of a three part approach to this problem. Two additional Bills are promised. I urge the completion of the process on an accelerated basis. We have waited a long time for this legislation and I hope it will not be years before the next two Bills are introduced.

Much of the archaeological and historical heritage of the country is badly protected and is in a terrible state of neglect. Castles, keeps and other historic buildings, which in other places would be of huge archaeological interest, are not even listed buildings or structures. They enjoy no protection. I visited a fine medieval castle in County Kerry that appeared to date from the sixteenth century and was amazed to find it used as a farm building, albeit it was enjoying some preservation by being used thus.

I live beside the ruins of a thirteenth century monastic abbey. The central tower, which is approximately 60 feet tall, lists off the perpendicular by approximately four degrees. I raised the matter several times in the Dáil when I was a Member. The former national monuments section of the Office of Public Works used to tell me it had no responsibility for the structure. One day it will be blown down by the wind because it has no support. It is a pity that State agencies, which should have responsibility, will say they have none. The building has decorated stones containing interesting motifs and when it falls everybody will be horrified and ask why it was allowed to happen. These things happen because we let them.

The matter to which I refer is not covered by this legislation but it is related to the problem we have in this country. The national monuments branch has been in existence for approximately 108 years. During that period it has taken into full care and protection and done restoration work on approximately 800 or 900 monuments throughout the country, despite the fact that more than 60,000 monuments require protection. While the branch does excellent work the net total is unimpressive. It has barely scratched the surface in dealing with our archaeological and historic heritage.

When I rose to speak I did not know what approach I would take to the Bill. Senator Norris has returned from Warsaw. I travel there tomorrow. I last visited it in 1975 and was most impressed by the restoration of the old town, including the restoration of the old church of St. Mary and St. John and the other buildings, which were not just demolished by the Nazis but were dynamited to effect their total destruction.

I welcome this legislation. I hope the Minster will return to the House next year to introduce two further Bills to complete this process.

Dr. Henry

It is good to hear universal compliments paid to the Bill. Our enthusiasm is a sign of the times. We now have such confidence in ourselves and the country that every bit of it is precious. There was a time when Georgian architecture was considered to be almost foreign to us because it was put up by foreign hands. It is a tribute to the Department that such effort has been put into the Bill and I congratulate the Minister on introducing it.

Senator O'Dowd spoke of the difficulties he encountered when Drogheda Grammar School was knocked down. I remember the occasion. If it were to be knocked down now, not only Senator O'Dowd and his friend would be raging: the whole town would protest in anger.

Like Senator Connor I regret the many important buildings which are no more. They may not have been astonishing except for their peculiar characteristics. For example, the building which contained Sutton's, the seed merchants in Cork on the South Mall, had a funny little turret on the end. However, because it was a valuable site the entire red bricked building was demolished to be replaced by a terrible concrete monstrosity. Buildings like this were destroyed on a national scale; that was a great pity.

Perhaps we could restore some of these buildings. Like Senator Norris and Senator Connor I have travelled and have visited Warsaw and seen the buildings to which they referred being not restored but rebuilt. The rebuilding was very sad because in many cases very rough plaster material had to be used. It is incredible to think that when the city was on its knees and in ruins the first act by those involved in the restoration was the procurement of the Caneletto paintings of Warsaw from Italy to restore what were used in the restoration of the streetscapes of the city. Similarly, despite the scale of death in St. Petersburg — I visited the graveyard there — the first thing the citizens did was to rebuild the Summer Palace, which was not even the palace located in the city centre. To have a strong sense of one's heritage is very important. While we are perhaps coming late in the day to this, we are at last doing so.

The restoration of small buildings has made a huge difference to some small towns. One thinks of the King House in Boyle, another Cistercian Abbey; perhaps the Cistercians were everywhere.

They were also in Glanworth where the mill has been beautifully restored while it now contains an elegant restaurant. If the signs were in French one would think one was in the Dordogne.

We can do tremendous acts of restoration. They do not have to be of big or important houses. A lady I know went to live in a modest house opposite the Olympia Theatre. The most important aspect of the house was a plaster work sign at the front, which reads "The Sick and Indigent Room Keeper's Society". She has found it a source of entertainment to tourists, who I gather bring her gifts of sandwiches. They presumably believe there is a colony of people within who require support.

When the British-Irish Parliamentary Body visited York our hosts told me they would not take us to see their Viking remains because they thought we had such splendid ones. I did not confess to what happened to Wood Quay but said I would like to see all Viking remains and would be grateful if they would take me to see theirs. It is a pity we did not manage to preserve sufficient to have the kind of display they have in York. I believe we would find it much more difficult today to carry out the kind of desecration that occurred at Wood Quay.

There are problems with a group of buildings I would describe as working churches. They cannot get funds from the State, and properly so. Is it possible for the Minister to find a way of providing for them? They face grave difficulties. For example, the Augustinians are leaving their church on Arran Quay, the first church built after Catholic emancipation. In addition, great efforts are being made to try to restore St. Catherine's, outside which Robert Emmet was executed. There are also great difficulties in preserving St. Mary's Cathedral in Limerick. Can something be done to support this very important structure? I know the State does not support religious property but perhaps there is some way to deal with it.

I am delighted with all those people who made such a fuss about church interiors. I know central altars are important but very fine marblework in many of our cathedrals was about to go for the chop but for the intervention of some parishioners and clergy.

It is important that interiors are covered by this legislation. Recently ambassadors visited this House and I sat in this room with some of them. The Italian Ambassador asked me who decorated the ceiling. To my shame I did not know the name of the craftsman but said I thought he was Italian. The ambassador said no, that a lot of the work in this country was done by Irishmen. We must treasure the interiors as well because many Irish people were trained in the craft and did the work. It was not done by a couple of Italian plasterers who came here. It is very important we maintain the work of our ancestors.

The emphasis on streetscapes is very important but unfortunately, the State has been one of the worst offenders in this area. For example, look at what happened to the longest Georgian streetscape in Ireland and England, the ESB building on Lower Fitzwilliam Street.

With regard my pet subject, can anyone try to retrieve our equestrian statues and erect them somewhere? Whatever about the horse riders, can we not get back the horse statues because some of them only had a leg or two blown off? Will someone look for these statues? I remember splendid horse statues in St. Stephen's Green and another in the Phoenix Park. Can I make a final plea to the Department of the Environment and Local Government to look for these horses? I am not so worried about their riders but our streetscapes could be very much improved if we got them back. I always enjoyed taking visitors from the North out the back of the building and showing them a statue of Prince Albert. We let the statue of Queen Victoria go to Australia. If it becomes a republic, perhaps we will demand that the statue be returned.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Byrne)

I thank all who took part in the debate. I also thank them for their welcome of the Bill.

There is general agreement that this Bill represents a major step forward in ensuring that Ireland's built heritage will be passed on to future generations. The system which this Government is establishing to strengthen the protection afforded to the built heritage is very much based on a partnership approach between the Department of the Environment and Local Government, local authorities and Dúchas, the heritage service of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.

The Department of the Environment and Local Government will be charged with implementing this Bill and overseeing the new grants scheme to be administered by local authorities. Local authorities will have the primary role in identifying buildings for the protection and for preserving the best of the built heritage through the planning system. Dúchas will be charged with compiling the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and with providing conservation advice and guidelines to planning authorities as the need arises. We are creating a systematic approach to protecting architectural heritage. It uses the resources and local knowledge of the local authority and backs it up with central advice and expertise. This approach should overcome the inconsistencies in approach to built heritage which existed in the past.

I thank Senators for their contributions to the debate and look forward to the details being discussed on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for the first sitting day after Christmas.

Sitting suspended at 6.45 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.