Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be taken together.
Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historic Monuments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1998 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 22, after "artistic," to insert "cultural,".
The definition of "architectural heritage" was discussed at length on Second Stage in both the Seanad and the Dáil. Having regard to the concerns raised by Senators and Deputies and in order to maintain consistency with the related Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998, which has already been amended in this House to include the word "cultural", I now propose to amend the definition in this Bill, also to include the word "cultural".
I wish I were so organised. I wanted to insert the word "literary" after the word "artistic" because one characteristic of Ireland which helps us to stand out internationally has been the literary achievements of many of our people. From the historic and tourism perspectives there is great interest in visiting the places where artistic and literary figures spent time creating work which subsequently achieved fame and greatness. I used the word "literary" specifically because, from my remit in the Department with responsibility for tourism, I know this matter was analysed by Bord Fáilte and by those who are in the business of bringing international visitors here.
There are a number of establishments around the country where playwrights, poets and others — scribes of words — spent some of their time and those establishments should be noted for that. There is the odd plaque on the walls of houses in some cities which indicate that a certain person lived or stayed there. The value of a literary work to a person who reads and understands it, and associates with it, is enhanced by being in a position to visit a house, dwelling or a place where that writer or poet stayed. This amendment seeks to broaden the definition of architectural heritage to include in the inventory places where literary works were created.
The Minister's amendment seeks to insert the word "cultural" in the definition of architectural heritage while Deputy Kenny's seeks to insert the word "literary". To me, the word "literary" represents the written word. The word "cultural" seems to have a broader remit. I have an open mind on the inclusion of either term and I await the Minister's response.
Regarding the matter raised by Deputy Kenny, our great literary tradition augurs well for our tourism industry. Having been a Minister with responsibility for tourism, Deputy Kenny would know cultural tourism is an important niche which Ireland can expand. Given that the word "cultural" will be included in the definition, it incorporates the word "literary" in Deputy Kenny's amendment. As the original definition of architectural heritage has been expanded to include cultural matters, it is not necessary to include the word "literary" in the definition. Culture is an all embracing term and it includes all matters of artistic and intellectual endeavour. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to accept amendment No. 2. The term proposed in amendment No. 2 is included in amendment No. 1. As Deputy O'Shea said, the term "cultural" has a wider remit than the term "literary" and it includes the word "literary".
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 23, after "interest" to insert ", whether intrinsically or by reason of their setting,".
The thinking behind my amendment is in line with the Granada Convention which provides for a building or a structure having architectural heritage because of its setting rather than its intrinsic value. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, particularly given that the amendment is in line with the Granada Convention which inspired many of the provisions of this Bill.
Deputy O'Shea's amendment proposes the insertion of the word "setting". The definition of architectural heritage in terms of settings, groups and sites is included in section 1(a), (b) and (c). I agree with the Deputy that the definition of architectural heritage in the Granada Convention is the one we have taken on board. We ratified the Granada Convention and it is up to us to bring it into effect. That is what this legislation will do. The definition is broad and inclusive and it has the advantage of clarity. The inclusion of groups of such structures and buildings and sites in the definition of architectural heritage in the Bill provides for the definition of elements of architectural heritage that are of interest by reason of their setting. This definition is also reflected in the related Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998, the Committee Stage of which has been passed. It is essential that there should be consistency in the definitions in respective Bills relating to our architectural heritage. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.
Section 1(a) states that architectural heritage means all structures and buildings, together with their settings, but that does not mean that a building that has architectural heritage merit because of its setting is necessarily included in that definition.
The concept of the setting is built into the definition in the Bill. As the Deputy correctly said, the definition is in line with the definition in the Granada Convention. We are talking about architectural heritage in its totality. That is why there is a deliberate reference to the structures and buildings together with their settings. The definition also refers to the groups of such structures and buildings and sites. The definition is inclusive and describes the situation the Deputy would like to be included in the legislation. His amendment is catered for in the wording of the proposed Bill.
If the Minister is satisfied that this definition is in line with the definition in the Granada Convention, I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 31, after "buildings" to insert "as determined for the purposes of this Act by an authorised officer".
We are dealing with the definitions in the Bill. Section 1 states that an "authorised officer" means a person appointed under section 3(1) an authorised officer. It also states that "premises" includes land, structures and buildings as defined under the Bill. That means that the definition and meaning of the word "premises" including land, structures and buildings determined as being relevant to this legislation are so deemed by the authorised officer who will be appointed under section 3(1), not by the owner, the occupier or the lessee of the premises. For that reason, and for the sake of clarity, my amendment seeks to insert that premises, which include land, structures and buildings, should be defined by the authorised officer who will be appointed by the Minister under this legislation.
Amendment No. 4 relates to the definition of "premises". Section 3 sets out the functions of authorised officers and includes the qualifying circumstances and functions for which any authorised officer may enter a premises. It would not be appropriate for an unauthorised officer to determine the circumstances under which he or she may enter a premises. It is, therefore, not appropriate or necessary to qualify the definition of "premises", as proposed.
This concerns the drawing up of the national inventory of architectural and historic monuments. A premises which included land, structures and buildings could have a number of recently constructed buildings. For the purposes of the Bill, those buildings are deemed to be part of the premises but they would probably have no relevance to the inventory. For example, a large estate might have an old house, stables, courtyard, walled gardens, orchards and so on which would be of historic interest, but a slatted unit or hayshed might be of no historic interest. I tabled the amendment to clarify the definition of "premises" in the Bill, in terms of what was relevant to an authorised officer's job.
It is important to note that it would not be advisable or wise for the authorised officer to have to determine what is a premises, which is why it is already defined for him or her in the Bill. It would put the officer in an invidious position if he or she had to decide on the definition. The only purpose of the authorised officer is to carry out work on the inventory. It is important that the authorised officers can do their work and that the term "premises" is defined in the Bill. He or she is only there for the purpose of drawing up the inventory.
I accept the Minister's explanation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following definition:
"'private dwelling' means a building within the land, structures and buildings occupied for the purposes of living in;".
We have dealt with the authorised officer and the premises. Section 3(5)(a) states: "An authorised officer shall not enter a private dwelling, or such part of any premises as constitutes a private dwelling". It has come to my attention that different owners might have different interpretations of what constitutes their private dwelling. It is necessary to clearly define the term "private dwelling" in the Bill. I deem a private dwelling to be a building which is occupied for the purpose of living in but which is situated on the premises, which includes lands and buildings. The Minister may think this is superfluous, but, given that the Bill defines the term "premises", it should also define a private dwelling.
I am advised by the Attorney General that the meaning of "dwelling", for the purposes of this Bill, is sufficiently clear. In such circumstances, it would not be considered appropriate, wise or necessary to introduce the definition proposed by Deputy Kenny. I am not a lawyer but I understand there is a reference in Article 40 of the Constitution to "dwelling". I will obviously follow the Attorney General's advice that it would be unwise and unnecessary to further define "dwelling" in the Bill.
I do not wish to cross the Attorney General. If he has advised the Government and the Minister that he is happy "dwelling" covers the definition of private dwelling for the purposes of the Bill, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section;
"2.—In carrying out his or her functions under this Act, the Minister shall have due regard to the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe done at Granada on the 3rd day of October, 1985.
I am advised that much of the Bill was inspired by the Granada Convention. However, the Bill falls short of the convention in some ways. In order to redress this, it would be useful to provide that regard should be had to the convention in the implementation of the Bill.
Deputies will be aware the Granada Convention was ratified by Ireland in January 1997. Ireland is, therefore, bound to comply with its provisions. I had an opportunity to state in the Seanad and on Second Stage in the Dáil that this Bill gives effect to that convention.
The definition of architectural heritage in the Bill is wider than that in the Granada Convention. The convention is a means of proclaiming common principles for the protection of architectural heritage at European level. It sets down clearly obligations for its signatories in terms of the identification of properties to be protected; protection procedures to be followed and responsibilities, in a European context, for co-operation in conservation policies.
The main purpose of this Bill is to place the national inventory of architectural heritage on a statutory basis in order to comply fully with the requirements of the Granada Convention. The Bill will give effect to obligations in relation to the identification of properties at national level. Therefore, it is not appropriate, and would be potentially confusing, to refer to the Granada Convention in the Bill.
I regret, therefore, I am unable to accept amendment No. 6. I believe the views expressed by the Deputy and his underlying reason for tabling this amendment are covered in the Bill, which gives effect to the Granada Convention.
As the Minister is satisfied that the Bill gives full effect to the Granada Convention, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 12, after "Heritage" to insert "and the Minister shall cause to be included in that inventory every structure and building, together with their settings and attendant grounds, fixtures and fittings, group of such structures and buildings, and site, which is in his or her opinion of architectural, historical, archaeological, scientific, social or technical interest".
This amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Minister to ensure the registration of structures of interest. As the Bill is currently drafted, registration is optional; section 2 states that the Minister "may" add a site. An amendment similar to this to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill was accepted by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. This will strengthen NIAH in that all structures will be listed.
I support Deputy O'Shea's proposal but it may be necessary to insert the word "cultural" in his amendment, having amended section 1 of the Bill. As regards drawing up the inventory and including structures and buildings, we are now in a position where development is leading planning to an enormous extent. Every local authority is swamped with applications for planning developments of all kinds. Many local authorities are short of planners and people to administer the planning process. Dúchas must be informed in these cases, and rightly so, but local authorities are under enormous pressure in coping with the number of applications.
Deputy O'Shea's amendment mentions structures, premises, buildings, settings, sites, etc. When the process is concluded for a property and it is included in the national inventory, what is its status if a developer applies for planning permission in the vicinity or on part of this property? For instance, a large house on a big estate with mature sycamore trees may be included in the inventory. A developer may wish to sell 50 acres of the estate and apply for planning permission to build 300 houses. What would be the effect, in terms of current pressures on the planning process, of including the dwelling and premises in the inventory?
In drawing up the inventory the Department has specific knowledge and expertise in this area. There is an opportunity to give this expertise to local authorities before any decisions are taken. That is part of the package which includes this Bill and the Bill from the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The planning laws have specific purposes. I want to ensure we are in a position to give further money for staff and to bolster efforts to draw up the inventory as quickly as possible. It was suggested that it would be some years before the inventory would be complete but I intend to seek resources to speed up that process. The Department will be playing a major role in providing expertise and knowledge of our architectural heritage to the local authorities involved.
Looking at the legislation rather than the current Minister's intentions, there is no obligation on a Minister, whoever that may be at any future date, to register structures of interest as defined by the Bill. That is my difficulty and that is why I tabled the amendment.
Section 2(1) states: "The Minister shall cause to be established and maintained an inventory to be known as the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage". This makes clear where the Minister of the day will stand. The work shall be done and we want it completed in the quickest possible time. It will then be up to the Department to act as the guiding hand for the local authorities involved. They have been developing conservation expertise and will continue to do so. I also hope that the national heritage plan will be maintained at local level because it will give an added impetus to conservation and preservation. The NIAH will have the basic data and guidelines for local authorities.
I will not press the amendment at this time. Is the Minister saying there are further strictures on local authorities in terms of listing buildings of special interest in their areas which, de facto, will be included on the NIAH list?
That is a question for the inventory process. When the inventory is drawn up, all this information will be channelled through the local authorities; it will not come from the Department. That is an important part of the process. Not only is there local involvement, there is local responsibility for each area.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 12, after "Heritage" to insert "and that such inventory be completed within 5 years of the passing of the Act".
As I said earlier, the physical face of Ireland has changed completely in the past five years and is set again to change completely in the next five years. The Second Stage debate on this Bill led us to believe it would take up to 12 years to complete the inventory. By then, in 2011, there may have been up to four changes of Government and of Minister, with different categories and titles. The projection for Dublin is that 210,000 more people will be working in the city with up to 200,000 extra cars in the region, not to mention the effect of building over the next decade.
I support the drawing up of the national inventory but we should set specific targets. The Minister said she would seek money in order to draw up the inventory as soon as possible. I do not know how many buildings would warrant inclusion in the inventory but if it is not completed until 2011 many buildings which should be included will no longer exist.
I ask the Minister to explain the mechanics of this issue. In County Clare, for instance, which the Minister represents, the Department, Dúchas and the county council may decide that a certain number of buildings, premises, structures and lands should be examined for inclusion in the inventory. What will be the process? Will the county council or the Department write to the property owner asking to carry out an inspection under this Bill to categorise the property for the purposes of the inventory? Will the person concerned get a written notice? What levels of staff will be made available to do this critical work? If professional staff at local authority level are not made available to do this work and if funding for it is not given by the Department of Finance, this work could continue for 25 years and the inventory would still not be completed.
I strongly support the Minister on the need to carry out this work and I would make the case to the Department of Finance that the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands should be given the necessary resources to ensure this inventory is completed within five years of the passing of the Act, and that she be given whatever resources and personnel are needed to do that work. One does not need a Ph.D. in history to decide that a particular historic house warrants inclusion under a general categorisation. I am sure personnel can be made available and trained in a short time to deal with the mechanics of that. If their information deems that there is a need for a more in-depth analysis, that could be carried out by a more experienced professional.
This Bill will become even more important as time passes because this issue will quickly fade from the people's memories. The Minister should set a target that the inventory will be completed within five years, otherwise Departments other than the Minister's may decide it is not that important and that it should be left for another 20 years while work continues on it. That is not good enough and I would like the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands to state that she expects this inventory to be completed in five years.
I thank Deputy Kenny for his support. More resources are needed to deal with this matter more quickly. The interdepartmental report on the siting of the architectural heritage estimates that there are one million structures of significant architectural heritage to be inventoried and that it will take 25 years to carry out the work. I was unhappy to hear 25 years mentioned and I sought to reduce that period. Given the additional financial and staffing resources being made available to the NIAH, and the draft criteria to allow other parties, such as local authorities or universities, to carry out inventory work to a standard acceptable to the NIAH, it has proved possible to shorten the time to 12 years. I accept that 12 years is a long time and I would much prefer to be in a position to shorten that time. I am willing to make every effort to reduce that timescale even further, but I am advised that similar work in other countries has taken much longer than the proposed 12 years. In view of the urgency attached to conserving our architectural heritage, I requested that a preliminary countywide survey be completed and be made available to local authorities within three years.
On Second Stage I acknowledged the support of Members for the provision of greater resources for the work of the NIAH. While the Bill establishes the principles of providing resources for the work of the NIAH, I have committed myself to seeking a greater level of resources, both staffing and funding, in the future.
Deputy Kenny referred to the procedure of the NIAH. The authorised officers will call at the premises and show their ID. We referred to that procedure earlier when discussing other amendments.
Deputy Kenny also asked about the staff who would be made available to deal with this area in the Department. The existing technical staff from the NIAH consists of one permanent member and four and a half contract staff. My aim is to have ten technical staff with sufficient administrative back-up staff within one year. Recruitment of staff has already been initiated through the Civil Service Commission. Redeployment of staff within the Civil Service may also be utilised and finance will also be available to contract work out to universities, local authorities and others. That addresses the point raised by Deputy Kenny about the possibility of widening the scope.
If people are of the view that we are waiting for 12 years to effect any change or protection, it is important for them to understand that the county surveys are ongoing. The County Clare survey has been published in draft form. The field work on six other counties has been completed and 26 interim county surveys are to be completed within three years. All this information is given to local authorities as soon as it becomes available. Therefore, it is not a question of simply waiting for 12 years to pass before any work can begin. The work on ensuring the protection and preservation of those buildings is being done as we speak.
The Minister is dealing with this matter from two angles. On the one hand she is anxious to get more staff and money to do the job as quickly as possible while, on the other, work is ongoing. We all know that when the Minister meets the Minister for Finance — as happens to all Ministers — to make her case for the Estimates, this is an area that is likely to be lopped off at the end if there is pressure for whatever money she seeks. Will the Minister indicate how much money is available for the contracting out of the necessary works to universities and other colleges in 1999? From a voluntarism point of view, many young people who are committed to this type of preservation would be willing to become involved in this work if they were given the necessary training. Many more people may be willing to assist the Minister in gathering the technical information required than the number for whom the Department might have budgeted.
In the work that is ongoing at local authority level, how many local authorities have a qualified architectural historian in their service? Does that work take place in counties where there is no such professional involved? From my understanding and having spoken to a number of local authority officials, I gather that they are so taken up with pressure for development in all other areas that this matter receives scant attention.
The field work has been completed in County Clare. I assume that is coincidental.
It is a perfect constituency.
The field work has also been completed in six other counties. When the field work is completed in one county, do the personnel who carried it out then move to Wexford, Wicklow or Louth to carry out the field work that must be completed there before the survey is completed or what type of rota operates? I am sure forces outside the control of the Minister will say that life goes on in Ireland and that these buildings or sites have been there for the past 300 years and they will be there for another 50 years. The Minister must make a mark here and I want to help her to do so.
I acknowledge the Deputy's wish to assist me on this matter. It is obvious that the Government has put particular emphasis on the need not only to draw up an inventory but to carry it through by ensuring that both pieces of legislation have been championed by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and me. We believe it is most important that these issues should be enshrined in legislation.
We never have enough money to do all the work we would like to do in the timescale we would like. I am not hung up on the requirement of 12 years. I would like to narrow the gap as much as we can. I share the Deputy's concerns that the sooner we can get this work done the better. However, we must also be realistic about the amount of money that will be made available — of course, that will not stop us fighting for increased funds and staffing for these projects. As Deputies know, £800,000 was made available by our Department for the provision of expert information to the local authorities. The sum of £3.2 million will be provided by grants from the Department of the Environment and Local Government and under the legislation which complements this Bill.
The fieldwork is being done. As I said, 26 interim county surveys will be completed within three years. Once those preliminary surveys are done, we will know the numbers we are dealing with. I assure Deputies I will continue to do what I can to increase the money.
When one is dealing with new legislation and a new concept, one must establish the principle at the outset. The principle has been established by the publication and future enactment of this Bill, along with the money that has been provided. However, we must work to increase those funds. I thank Deputy Kenny for saying he will lend his support to the Minister for Finance in terms of increasing the funds under this legislation.
The Minister said she would like to reduce the term of 12 years. I proposed a term of five years. Could we settle on eight years, which would mean we would not have to vote on it?
I do not wish to be stubborn but I do not think it is advisable to put such a timescale into a Bill. I assure the Deputy I will be as flexible as possible, in terms of trying to move the legislation on, but it would not be appropriate to insert the timescale suggested by him.
Does the Minister accept there should be a full progress review every so often?
There should be a full review of progress but it is not necessary to provide for that in the legislation. I have no problem in reviewing the progress of the legislation — it is most important to do so.
Those reviews often take place on the basis of what is happening in Kerry or Donegal. This Bill should be led by the Minister and it should be made absolutely clear that there is no room for complacency or slack work. Local authorities and the NIAH have, in the Minister's words, a job to do here, which is to get the inventory drawn up as quickly as possible. The Minister of the day must ensure that as much money as possible is made available to ensure that work is done.
I do not want the Bill to be just passed. As the Minister said, if the legislation lasts for 25 years, some of the million plus buildings, premises and structures will not be worth including in any inventory. This legislation must be driven and led by the Minister and it must be made crystal clear that she means business in this regard. I support that very strongly. I will withdraw the amendment for the moment but I may return to it on Report Stage.
In order to prevent confusion, I wish to point out that we are now talking about 12 years, not 25 years as the Deputy said. I am sure the Deputy will agree that I would not have gone to the trouble of promoting and steering this legislation through Cabinet unless I was fully behind it. I assure him that once the Bill is enacted we want to see it work effectively. I agree there is no room for complacency. He referred to the need for a mechanism to review the legislation which we could look at for Report Stage. I agree with the principle expounded by the Deputy in that regard and we will see what we can do about it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, subsection (3)(b), line 28, after "affected" to insert "and their public liability".
Amendment No. 10, states:
In page 5, subsection (5)(b)(ii), line 21, after "entry," to insert the following:
"and
(iii) confirm that no public liability will attach to the occupier or owner of such premises in the event of any accident occurring while an appointed officer's functions are being carried out under this section,".
My reason for tabling these amendments is that I have received a great deal of correspondence from people around the country who live in some of the one million premises that are to be included in the inventory. A number of them made the point that an officer from the NIAH will arrive at their door, produce identification and ask to come in to carry out an inspection. Many of these older premises are in very rickety condition. I was recently in one where General Humbert was reputed to have stayed. The scheme for reconstructing or saving some of these structures is very welcome. However, some of them are in very poor condition.
A number of people have made the point that they do not want an inspector from the NIAH falling down the stairs or 20 feet from a scaffold when is he is examining plasterwork. They do not have the money to repair their premises and they do not want that situation to be exacerbated by claims for compensation resulting from accidents on their premises or lands. Can the Minister state categorically that, if an accident befalls an officer carrying out an inspection on behalf of the NIAH, no compensation claim will be lodged against the owner or occupier of the premises?
I share the misgivings expressed by Deputy Kenny about liability that could attach to an owner following an inspection or survey by an authorised officer. I raised on Second Stage the problems that could arise for particular property owners when the inventory is published. Making people aware of structures of architectural merit will bring more visitors who could be involved in accidents on these premises. The Bill could unintentionally greatly expand a landowner's exposure to public liability.
I am worried about the same issue as Deputy O'Shea, that is, people coming onto the premises who may make claims.
I am well aware of the difficulties people can face with regard to occupiers' liability, not least in the Burren. The Chairman and I are well acquainted with that area, which contains a number of national monuments, and landowners and farmers are quite concerned. This issue has been debated at length in the House. Public liability is governed by the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1995, and the provisions of this Bill do not in any way change or amend the legal provisions governing occupiers' liability outlined in that Act.
Authorised officers will enter people's property as a result of the NIAH. I could not accept the proposals in amendments Nos. 9 and 10 because their effect would be that officers of my Department, authorised for the purposes of the inventory, would be afforded a lesser level of protection than that enjoyed by authorised officers operating in other contexts, such as officers of the Department of the Environment and Local Government. This is not setting a precedent, it is a question of authorised officers having the same protection from my Department as from other Departments of State.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify this point. If an officer of a Department arrives on a property and breaks a leg in the course of his or her duty, who is responsible? What level of cover is given to the departmental officer? The owner may be strapped for cash and the house and grounds might not be insured. If the officer falls in the house or catches his foot on the root of a sycamore tree and bangs his head on a ploughshare, who is responsible?
Under the Occupiers Liability Act, 1995, the occupier has a duty of care. There was a great deal of discussion about that when the legislation was going through the House. There are three categories of user to whom the occupier has a duty of care under the Act — the recreational user, the visitor, which includes authorised entrants, and the trespasser. This legislation provides that the authorised officer entering the land for the purposes of drawing up the inventory has the same level of protection as any other authorised entrant. Although I am sure this is not intended, the consequence of accepting amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would be that the authorised officers of my Department who draw up the inventory would have less protection than is afforded to other officers. I could not accept that.
If that is the case and if the owners of premises to be included on the national inventory are still concerned, what is the effect of erecting a sign stating that any person crossing the land does so at his or her own risk? The landowner may be in his 80s and unable to make the land reasonably accessible or remove the danger of falling over hidden stones, iron bars, etc. I understand the responsibility but the landowner may be aged or infirm and unable to do the work. As Deputy O'Shea said, if the property is included on the national inventory people will want to see it or look around it. What would be the effect of erecting such a notice for Department personnel and for tourists?
I am not a lawyer and do not have the legal answer to that question. From my layperson's viewpoint, I imagine that erecting a notice does not exempt a landowner from his or her legal obligations in this regard. Occupiers have a duty of care to recreational users, visitors, including authorised entrants, and trespassers. The law has been in place since 1995 and it applies whether this Bill is introduced or not. Under the 1995 Act, the authorised officer who enters land to do work under this Bill would have to have the same protection as any other authorised entrant. This is not creating a precedent.
I appreciate what the Minister is saying. An officer may arrive at a household and produce identification; the owner may allow the officer to enter but warn him that the floor in a particular room is rotten and he could fall through the ceiling, so he enters it at his own risk. In that case the owner does not want to refuse the officer entry to the premises and is interested in having it included in the national inventory but has stated clearly that the officer enters at his own risk.
At the risk of repeating myself, the occupier still has a duty of care and it is his or her responsibility to meet that duty. That duty must cover such authorised personnel as is envisaged under this legislation. Again, I am not a lawyer but under the present law warning someone of the dangers which might arise on the land would not exempt the occupier from his legal responsibility in this regard.
If that is the case, in the example I gave the occupier would be well advised to refuse entry.
Where entry is refused to an authorised officer the Bill has provisions to gain entry by applying to the court. That is a separate issue and does not affect the legal position as of now, which is not a result of this Bill. The occupier has a duty of care to any person entering land, whether he be a recreational user, a simple visitor or even a trespasser.
The law may have to be tested.
The law which would have to be tested is the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1995. That is a separate issue which does not arise under this Bill. However, I can see that there would be concern.
The national parks in Great Britain are public property and there are notices stating that if one enters it is at one's own risk, whereas five people from one parish may make a claim after falling in a national park in Ireland. People think they are on to a good thing if they break an ankle or tear a ligament.
This "compensation culture" was mentioned in the debate on the Occupiers Liability Act and again, it is a matter for another forum. If the Deputy believes it warrants re-examination he is free to raise it.
I thank the Chairman for his latitude and I accept the Minister's clarification. This may not answer the concerns of people whose dwellings are to be included in the national inventory but they can judge the explanation for themselves and decide how to view it in the context of an officer inspecting a property. While they are anxious to have work on their premises included, they have legitimate concerns about the premises in which they reside arising from the occupiers' liability Act.
I agree with the Deputy but it is important to explain to anyone who has this concern that the position as of now, whether this Bill becomes law, is that the occupier has a duty of care towards the trespasser, the visitor and the recreational user.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 3. agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 has been ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
We now come to amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 13 is related, therefore, amendments Nos. 12 and 13 may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
5.—Section 2 of the National Monuments Act, 1930, (as amended by section 11 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987) is hereby amended in the definition of 'monument' by the deletion of the words from ', but does not include' to the end of the definition.".
At present religious structures are exempt from the monuments Acts and this amendment removes that blanket exemption. The Minister may say it would be unconstitutional to do what I am seeking to do here, but apart from the fact that the 1937 Constitution was not in existence at the time this provision was enacted in 1930, there is an answer in the very terms of Article 44.2.6 , that is;
The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.
Amendment No 13 states:
In page 6, before section, 5, to insert the following new section:
5. — Section 2 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987, is hereby amended in the definition of 'historic monument' by the deletion of 'before 1700 A.D. or such later date' and the substitution of 'for at least 100 years or such shorter period'.".
Essentially this seeks to widen the definition of historic monument to any structure over 100 years old and not 299 years old, as is the position at present. These amendments seek to remove the exemption in relation to religious structures and to widen the definition of an historic monument.
I support Deputy O'Shea's efforts to broaden the remit of the national monuments legislation. It is worthy to preserve structures over 100 years old and local authorities tend to place a preservation order on them.
Both amendments relate to definitions under the National Monuments Act. I am very interested in the proposal to remove the exemption on religious structures. I am sure there will be further debate on that.
As the Deputies will be aware, I am drawing up a national heritage plan and I will use that opportunity to have a systematic review of the national monuments legislation. We will be reviewing the issue raised in these amendments in that context. Given that I will look at this issue in the more encompassing context of the national heritage plan, I ask Deputy O'Shea to consider withdrawing these amendments.
I am pleased the Minister will consider the points I have raised in these amendments in the context of a review of the national monuments legislation. My misgiving is that when the compilation of the national inventory stocks takes place we will be excluding buildings that are 100 years old and religious structures. If the Minister can assure me that the review of the national monuments legislation will be given priority and that she will introduce whatever amending legislation is necessary at the earliest possible date, I would be disposed to withdraw my amendments.
I have an interest in these issues and they certainly warrant further debate which can best take place during the debate on the national heritage plan. There have been representations on a weekly basis seeking help and recognition for ecclesiastical buildings. This needs further thought and the Deputies can be assured that I will be giving it great attention in the review of the national monuments legislation under the national heritage plan.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
5.—Any national or historic monument for the purposes of the National Monuments Acts, 1930 to 1994, shall be included in the inventory.".
This is self-explanatory and provides that all monuments shall be included in the national inventory.
This Bill provides a statutory basis for the systematic identification and recording of the architectural heritage as defined. Such identification facilitates a planned approach to the protection of that heritage through the new local government planning and development legislation and the national monuments Act, as appropriate. I am aware of the multiplicity of inventories, architectural, archaeological and natural, which essentially exist independently. This is an issue which will be addressed in the context of the national heritage plan. However, the scope of the terms national or historic monuments extends beyond the definition of architectural heritage and it would not be appropriate to block inclusion of these monuments from the national inventory of architectural heritage, nor is such block inclusion necessary as such monuments are already subject to protection under the national monuments Acts. In this regard, Deputies will be aware that the National Monuments (Amendment) Act made provision for the protection of all heretofore documented archaeological sites and monuments numbering some 120,000 in the State by establishing the statutory record of monuments and places. The record was completed in December last and represents a significant milestone in the protection of the built heritage of the State. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
I do not intend to pursue the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Title agreed to.