Convention for Protection of Architectural Heritage of Europe: Motion.

Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. M. Higgins)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural — Heritage of Europe done at Granada on 3 October, 1985, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on the 25th day of September, 1996.

Tá áthas orm an deis seo a bheith agam an coinbhinsiún seo a thabhairt faoi bhráid na Dála. I mí Mheán Fómhair seo caite, mar fhreagra ar Cheist Pharlaiminte ón Teachta Eoin Ryan, dúirt mé go raibh mé tar éis údarás a fháil ón Rialtas rún a chur os comhair na Dála ag glacadh le téarmaí an choinbhinsiúin. Dúirt mé freisin go mbeadh an tAire Gnóthaí Eachtracha ag déanamh ullmhúcháin, chun an Coinbhinsiún a cheangail, faoi réir aontú na Dála, don rún a bheadh á mholadh agamsa. Tá rún den chineál sin á mholadh agam anois agus táim ag tnúth le tacaíocht a fháil dó ó Chomhaltaí an Tí seo.

The convention, known as the Granada Convention, is one of the results of work on the co-ordination of policies on the protection of the architectural heritage which has been under way in the Council of Europe since the first European conference of Ministers responsible for the architectural heritage in 1968. It was opened for signature in Granada, Spain, on 3 October 1985, when it was signed by Ireland, and as of 1 December 1996 has been signed by 29 of the 40 member states of the Council of Europe. Of these, 23 have ratified the convention. In addition, one non-member state, Bosnia-Herzegovina, has acceded to the convention. The convention entered into force on 1 December 1987.

On many occasions over the past year, we have discussed in this House the importance of conserving our architectural heritage for the present as well as for future generations. It has been agreed on all sides that our built environment is a cultural resource developing over time and we achieve much of the understanding of our predecessors from the buildings we inherit. Similarly, future generations will see the values of our society reflected in what we conserve from the past and which we build today.

The ratification of the Granada Convention at this time is an important statement of our continuing commitment to the protection of the architectural heritage. The convention provides member states with a means of proclaiming common principles for the protection of the architectural heritage of Europe. It seeks to lay down European standards for the protection of the heritage and to set out a range of obligations which signatories undertake to implement. These obligations relate to the identification of properties to be protected, the implementation of statutory protection procedures and the acceptance of responsibilities in a European context for the co-ordination of conservation policies. The formal purpose of today's debate is to comply with Article 29 of the Constitution which requires Dáil approval to international conventions which involve a charge on public funds.

The main undertakings to be given by states ratifying or acceding to the convention are: to ensure that the architectural heritage, which is defined as monuments, groups of buildings and sites, is given adequate statutory protection and that inventories are maintained; to implement appropriate supervision and authorisation procedures as required by the legal protection of the properties in question; to prevent the disfigurement, dilapidation or demolition of protected properties and, if they have not already done so, introduce legislation (a) requiring the submission to a competent authority of schemes for the demolition or alternation of protected monuments or buildings, the erection of new buildings or alterations impairing the character of sites, (b) permitting public authorities to require the owner of a protected property to carry out work or to carry out such work themselves if the owner fails to do so — as provided for under the convention, it is proposed to enter a reservation in respect of this provision — I will be returning to this matter later in my speech, and (c) allowing the compulsory purchase of protected properties; to prohibit the removal of protected monuments, except where the safeguarding of the monument makes its removal imperative; to provide financial support for maintaining and restoring the architectural heritage within the limits of the budgets available and use fiscal measures to facilitate the conservation of the architectural heritage; to ensure that infringements of the law protecting the architectural heritage are met with a relevant and adequate response by the competent authority; to adopt integrated conservation policies which (a) include the protection of the architectural heritage as an essential part of the planning process, (b) promote programmes for the restoration and maintenance of the architectural heritage, to make conservation, promotion and enhancement of the architectural heritage a major feature of cultural, environmental and planning policies; to facilitate, when possible, in the planning process the conservation of buildings whose intrinsic importance would not warrant protection but which are of interest because of their setting; to foster the application and development of traditional skills and materials; to foster the use of protected properties to meet contemporary needs — the re-use of properties with tradition and spirit — and the adaptation where appropriate of old buildings for new uses; to ensure that the consequences of permitting public access to protected properties, especially any structural development, do not adversely affect the architectural and historical character of such properties and their surroundings; to facilitate the implementation of conservation policies and foster effective co-operation between conservation, cultural, environmental and planning activities; to establish in the decision-making process machinery for the supply of information, consultation and co-operation between the State, local authorities, cultural institutions, associations and, most importantly, the public, and foster the development of sponsorship and non profit-making associations; to develop public awareness of the value of conserving the architectural heritage, which may be its best protection; to promote training in architectural heritage conservation skills; to exchange information on their conservation policies, when necessary, to afford mutual technical assistance in the form of exchanges of experience and experts; and to encourage exchanges of specialists in architectural heritage conservation, including those responsible for training.

The convention also provides that a committee of experts will monitor the application of the convention and report periodically to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and that the EU, or any state not a member of the Council of Europe, may be invited to accede to the convention.

I am satisfied that, subject to a reservation being entered in respect of Article 4.2c, existing legislation and practice is adequate to give full effect to all of the obligations the convention will impose on the State on ratification.

Article 4.2c obliges parties to the convention to introduce, if they have not already done so, legislation permitting public authorities to require the owner of a protected property to work on such a property or to do such work themselves if the owner fails to do so. However, Article 25 of the convention permits any state, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the convention, to declare that it reserves the right not to comply with the provisions of Article 4.2c. As of 1 December 1996 two states, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, have entered such a reservation when ratifying the convention. It is proposed to enter a reservation in respect of Article 4.2c, as public authorities do not currently have such powers, and the legal and financial implications of introducing powers enabling public authorities to require the owner of a protected property to work on the property, or to do such work themselves if the owner fails to do so, will require careful consideration. In this regard it should be noted, and it is relevant, that this matter has been examined by an interdepartmental working group on strengthening the protection of the architectural heritage, which has recommended in its report, to which I will refer further later, that such powers be introduced. The Minister for the Environment and I are considering the report of the working group with a view to bringing forward to Government a package of proposals based on the report's recommendations and taking account of any observations received on those recommendations. I hope to be in a position in the future to withdraw the Article 4.2c reservation. As an indication of our commitment to the protection of our architectural heritage it is important that, subject to entering a reservation in respect of Article 4.2c, Ireland ratifies the convention without delay.

The policy agreement for Government entitled A Government of Renewal contains a number of commitments in the heritage area. Many of these have already been achieved during the past year and a half, most notably the establishment of the Heritage Council on a statutory basis in 1995 and the completion of the transfer of the heritage services to my Department this year.

Another commitment is to improve the legislative system for the preservation of the architectural heritage and to put in place a system of related financial support. In this regard I welcome the report of the interdepartmental working group entitled Strengthening the Protection of the Architectural Heritage, to which I referred earlier and which I laid before this House on 25 September. The 64 recommendations in this report span a wide range of issues. Acknowledging the existing listing system as part of the planning process, the working group recommends that this be built upon by addressing legislative and administrative weaknesses which currently exist. The report proposes that “listing” should remain a responsibility of planning authorities but that it should become a mandatory statutory function supported by a centralised co-ordinating and advisory service. There is a range of recommendations relating to the process of listing and the future control of development in relation to listed buildings.

Both my colleague, the Minister for the Environment and I, are considering this report with a view to bringing forward to Government a package of proposals based on its recommendations and taking account of any observations received on those recommendations. Improving the protection of the architectural heritage is an ongoing process and such a package of proposals would be entirely in keeping with the spirit of the convention. I recognise that the implementation of such proposals will have considerable resource implications. However, the commitment of resources is desirable both on the grounds of the improved protection which will be afforded to the architectural heritage and the resulting tourism and employment benefits which will accrue to the economy.

I welcome also the financial support for the conservation of the built environment allocated under the sub-programme for urban and village renewal of the EU co-funded Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development, 1994-99, administered by the Department of the Environment. In particular I welcome the recent publication by the Department of the Environment of a comprehensive set of guidelines on building conservation which were launched by my colleague, Deputy McManus, Minister of State at the Department of the Environment with responsibility for housing and urban renewal. The production of these guidelines was co-ordinated by the Irish Georgian Society and overseen by the Conservation Advisory Panel established to advise on the architectural conservation aspects of the operational programme. It is encouraging to see the broad consensus which has developed in the protection of our architectural heritage and which, I am delighted to say, is reflected in this House.

Mar fhocal scoir, agus ag tagairt arís don rún atá é phlé anois, ba mhaith liom a dhearbhú arís go bhfuil an rún ag teacht os comhair an Tí seo de bharr riachtanais Airteagal 29, fo-Airteagal 5.2, den Bhunreacht, a deireann nach mbeidh chonradh idirnáisiúnta a chuirfeadh costas ar an gciste poiblí ina cheangal ar an Stát mura dtoileoidh Dáil Éireann le téarmaí an chonartha sin. Molaim an rún don Teach.

Miss de Valera

Much of this convention is echoed in the recent Government report Strengthening the Protection of the Architectural Heritage. That report was welcomed in a flurry of publicity by the Minister but, as he has admitted this morning in his contribution, the Government has not yet committed itself to accepting or implementing the report's recommendations. The Minister stated also that he is still in discussion with the Minister for the Environment and he hopes at some stage in the future to be in a position to take on board some of the report's recommendations and observations. That should be done soon to ensure that action is taken immediately. The Minister will appreciate that much damage has been done, and continues to be done, to our heritage, particularly our architecture. The sooner this issue is addressed will we ensure that further protections can be put in place and that our heritage is less under threat.

The implementation of the report's recommendations would go a long way towards meeting the requirements of the convention. It seems we are taking action approximately 12 years after signing the convention. The definition of monuments specifically includes fixtures and fitting of buildings. This makes it clear it is not merely the facade of buildings which is to be protected but also their interior, together with custom made furnishings. It is not clear that existing legislation extends to interiors. Fianna Fáil is sponsoring a Bill to provide that planning procedures will extend to interiors.

Article 1 recognises that buildings cannot be judged in isolation — it may be a group of buildings rather than a single building or a landscape which includes buildings which is the relevant entity for protection. The Government report to which I referred, by recommending that legislative action for conserving architectural heritage should be placed within the ambit of the planning laws, does not adopt this concept. Instead it bases protection firmly upon a "building by building" basis. The idea of a conservation area, as outlined by Deputy Eoin Ryan in this North Great George's Street speech or by Deputy Bertie Ahern in his policy statement in the summer, does not appear in the Government work party report. The relevance of that is that it is evidently ridiculous to list individual buildings in Merrion Square or in North Great George's Street. It is the entire street or square that is the relevant entity for protection.

The Government might feel the National inventory of architecture, which is ongoing, and the work party recommendation that listing of buildings be mandatory meets the requirements set out in Article 2 for an inventory of buildings and sites to be protected. The timescale for the inventory of architecture is so long as to mean it cannot be relied on to represent compliance with Article 2. Mandatory listing by local authorities is clearly essential. In the meantime the State is the largest owner of heritage buildings in the country. It could, with little difficulty, produce an interim list of heritage buildings, based solely on buildings in its ownership and occupation. Deputy Eoin Ryan posed questions to Ministers during the past year asking them to identify buildings of architectural or historical interest occupied by them. What it revealed was that for the most part, relevant Government Departments did not know whether they occupied any such buildings.

At Parnell Street, we had the most recent instance of the Dangerous Buildings Section of Dublin Corporation directing that a building be demolished while it was the policy of the corporation to preserve that building. If the work party report is acted upon that situation should not arise again. It should be possible, however, to take immediate administrative action to ensure that the Dangerous Buildings Section of Dublin Corporation or of any local authority, does not serve a notice on a pre-1845 building without consultation with the relevant planning authorities and bodies such as the Irish Georgian Society and An Taisce. That is a measure that could be implemented immediately.

Article 4.2 proposes compulsory purchase of a protected property in extreme situations. The Government work party report exempted buildings occupied as a dwelling or as a Church from these provisions. It seems there are no grounds for exempting a religious building which has been allowed to fall into decay, and a dwelling should not be exempted if alternative accommodation is provided to the owner.

The tax reliefs available in Ireland hardly meet the requirements of Article 6 to provided financial support for maintaining architectural heritage. There is no provision for allowing relief for maintenance expenditure where it exceeds the income of the owner in the year in which it is incurred by carrying the excess forward or backward to other years; nor is relief permitted against capital gains tax as opposed to income tax. The public opening conditions to which the income tax and capital acquisitions tax reliefs are subject are so onerous as to effectively deny the reliefs to many people.

Article 10.4 is particularly relevant in Ireland. The quality of 19th century architecture in our small towns, particularly shop fronts, pub fronts and interiors, is only now beginning to be appreciated. In Munster particularly there is wonderful plasterwork on the front of many 19th century commercial buildings in small towns, and the colour patterns in use are extraordinarily vivid.

Article 12 raises a vital issue in Ireland. If important Irish buildings are to benefit from tax relief, they must be open to the public. They are being targeted by thieves and there has been serious loss of contents as a result. The targeting of these houses now appears to be quite systematic, and to be related to public access. Despite this, the Government continues to refuse to confirm that income tax relief would be available for the installation of burglar alarms, fire alarms and other precautions. The historical character of such properties is bound to be affected if their more valuable contents are stolen.

There is a difficulty in that measures for the conservation of important buildings, where they are based on the taxation code, do not work well on a cross-Border basis. If a UK-resident individual owns an important Irish house, the Irish income tax relief for the maintenance costs is of no value to him, since there is no similar relief available in Britain. The only results of Ireland granting a tax relief in such a situation is to leave his total tax burden unchanged but to ensure that a greater proportion of it than would otherwise be the case would be payable in Britain where there is no similar relief. The same problem arises in relation to an Irish resident who has substantial taxable income in other member states of the EU. The availability of the relief at home will not lower the foreign tax burden. There is a need for all the member states of the EU to grant mutual recognition to the tax reliefs which each state grants in relation to its national heritage. If an Irish person dies owning a French building which is exempt from inheritance taxes in France by reason of its importance, Ireland should likewise exempt it from Irish inheritance tax. That is not the case at present. This is something which can only be tackled on an EU-wide basis. It is unfortunate that our Presidency was not used to push through something sensible in this area. It would have been non-controversial and very useful in the overall approach to our heritage.

The fundamental proposition of the Government work party report that the protection of the architectural heritage should be based on planning laws is flawed. Planning laws can only prevent future abuses of the heritage. They cannot correct past abuses which have slipped through the net. They cannot compel the cessation of activities, for example, car repairs being carried on in a mews, which have been carried on for a long time. Neither can they deal with matters such as traffic pollution or inappropriate street signs and furniture. The planning laws are negative in character. A more proactive approach is needed in addition to the planning laws. The more important areas, such as the central Georgian areas of Dublin, require positive management, not merely negative protection.

Miss Quill

I have little stomach for this debate. The Minister's presentation struck me as being full of sound and fury signifying nothing. As we sign up to this convention we have no proper modern conservation law. We could have because, not more than nine months ago, I put before the House conservation legislation that was adjudged by all the experts to meet all their requirements and give proper protection to our architectural heritage. To our shame and discredit it was voted down by the Minister and the members of his Government.

Our public utterances sound very good but there is a big gap between what we say and what we do. It is small consolation to be told there is a comprehensive report if we always seem to be one report away from action. It is highly ironic that a shameful decision was made yesterday to give permission to destroy two listed buildings on College Green, which is the historic home of Grattan's Parliament.

Under the conservation legislation I prepared, College Green would have been designated a conservation area and each building there, listed or not, would have been required by law to conform to the overall historic importance and architectural merit of the area. However, our dereliction as legislators in not having proper conservation law in place has allowed permission to be given to a development in College Green which will fundamentally and irretrievably alter its historic and architectural character. It was allowed to happen because we have no legislation to give proper protection in law to areas of major historic importance.

On RTE's "Morning Ireland" this morning I heard a Dublin City councillor who is a member of my party say that this is a Dublin issue. It is not; it is a national issue. College Green's rich historical symbolism and importance and its rich architectural legacy is as much my inheritance as a Cork person as is it that of a Dublin person. I am particularly upset at what happened.

The Hilton hotel group is, of course, pleased to locate its hotel on College Green. We would all be delighted to have such a prestigious commercial address and would pay a lot for it. The issue was presented in a stark way on radio this morning, being portrayed as a choice between a hotel or an office building. Such a presentation is testament to the dereliction of our thinking.

Delay is the deadliest form of neglect and we have delayed for too long in putting in place proper conservation legislation. I cannot foresee such legislation on the Statute Book in the lifetime of the Government. However, even if it is, sufficient destruction will have been done between the time the Progressive Democrats Bill was rejected by this House and the time the new legislation is enacted to disgrace us as legislators.

There is little point in listing buildings if the listing has no statutory backing. What has happened in respect of the development in College Green has made a mockery of the system of listing. Past experience teaches us that listing must be mandatory. Every local authority must be obliged to list buildings of artistic, historic or architectural importance.

Within the last six months a building of prime historic importance in Cork city was demolished because there was no law to protect it. There was no system of incentives to assist a new owner and developer to redevelop the building and preserve its essential historical features. The house to which I refer is that in which Tomás MacCurtain, Lord Mayor of Cork, was murdered in March 1920. That building was an essential part of the country's history. As a concerned citizen with a sense of history I wanted it preserved for this and future generations. However, it was demolished. Once again it is the result of our failure to put in place legislation to protect it.

I sympathise with those who acquired the building in bad structural condition but did not have the resources to restore it in a fitting manner. There is a proper system of incentives for such cases in Northern Ireland, where about £10 million a year is available in incentives for developers to preserve and develop buildings in accordance with proper preservation principles. This is not always an easy task. If buildings are not refurbished or redeveloped with a proactive investment incentive approach they will drift into dereliction. We do not have such a system.

I am not enthusiastic about agreeing to this convention. It will do nothing to preserve Cologne Cathedral, for example. Germany and the other modern civilised democracies do not need me to tell them how to preserve their architectural heritage because they have done so in the past and are good at it. We are bad at doing so and many of our cities have been allowed to drift into dereliction through official neglect or have been developed in accordance with the worst possible planning, development and conservation principles.

I could list many buildings in Dublin that ought to have been preserved which have gone in the last seven or eight months. My party agrees with this convention and to our conforming to its principles. However, I appeal to the Minister to finish the consultation process speedily and present conservation legislation to the House early next year. He will receive the co-operation he needs from the Progressive Democrats in processing it. Any further delay would be a dereliction of duty.

Mr. Barry

I welcome this convention. It is important that an effort is made to conserve buildings of architectural and other merit. The list of conditions attached to the convention is such that there would be a wide range of buildings in this country suitable for preservation or conservation, not just for their architectural value but also for historical reasons. One of these is the cottage which Deputy de Valera's grandfather built in Bruree, County Limerick, which is of no architectural value but is of great historical importance. The same applies to Tomás MacCurtain's house in Blackpool in Cork which, as Deputy Quill said, was knocked down in recent months. There was a plaque on the wall for 75 years which was seen by all the members of Cork Corporation and the public in Cork. As we all allowed the building to fall into poor condition, we cannot pass the buck to anybody else. With McSweeney House, it should have been preserved.

In my youth I remember an architecturally equally important house being knocked down to make way for an extremely ugly development. It was known as The Doll's House on Lavitt's Quay, the setting for "The Saint and Mary Kate" by Frank O'Connor, and was worth preserving. There were no laws or conventions to prevent it being razed to the ground, except public opinion, which failed. Many buildings, which may in their time have been architecturally important, were knocked down to make way for the magnificent Georgian buildings which surround the House.

Much of what is worth preserving is in private hands, owned by people who do not have the funds or the interest to preserve it or do not appreciate the value of the properties they have on their hands. As the Deputies who know me are aware, I am very much against increasing public expenditure but I ask the Minister to consider tweaking the urban renewal scheme to give tax incentives to encourage people to preserve their buildings rather than forcing local authorities to take them over if they fail to do so. Tax incentives are already provided to encourage people to invest in the film industry and the arts. There should be similar incentives to encourage people to invest in the preservation of buildings of architectural importance.

We pay much attention — this is pretentious but true — to the elimination of poverty in a material sense. We should also pay much attention to the elimination of poverty of the mind. If we do not educate as well as feed our people, the children who will be reared in this society in a generation or two will be extremely deprived.

Mr. Ring

People will have to be educated about our stately homes. In Westport House, Westport has one of our finest stately homes. Lord Altamont has sought funds from the State for many years to preserve this beautiful building which is visited by many thousands of people throughout the year. I agree with Deputy Barry that the State should assist the owners of stately homes of which there are about nine remaining in Connacht. At one time there were many hundreds dotted throughout the country. If we continue present policy, there will be none left. Our stately homes have much to offer to visitors and remind us of our past.

Will the Minister or an official of his Department discuss with Jeremy Browne how Westport House can be preserved and become an asset to the State? I see nothing wrong with the State assisting private individuals. Turlough House, near Castlebar, has been purchased by Mayo County Council with the aid of grants from the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. Jeremy Browne and Lord Altamont should be assisted also. I agree with Deputy Barry that tax incentives should be given.

I hope the Minister will respond positively to my request. Lord Altamont has written to every Government Department. He has informed me that for the first ten years he was told about budgetary problems whereas now the Departments refer to criteria. He has made every effort to keep his beautiful stately home intact and is fed up receiving letters from officials. What he wants is action.

Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. M. Higgins)

I thank Deputies for their contributions and support for the ratification of the convention. That was no more than I expected given the support I have received for the protection of the heritage during my time as Minister with responsibility for that area. I appreciate and share the concerns expressed about a number of issues some of which I intend to take up in the limited time available.

This convention was available for signature since 1985. Everyone would agree that eleven years was a long time to wait. I do not want to rake over the past but for most of those eleven years I was not the responsible Minister.

To respond to Deputy Quill, I hope the legislation will be introduced early next year. There will be no delay.

Miss Quill

I thank the Minister.

Mr. Higgins

There is now consensus on these issues on all sides of the House. It is a great pity that, when the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Molloy, was Minister for Local Government, when people talked about physical planning, there was not the same degree of consciousness of the need for conservation, or of the status of buildings about which we have heard.

Deputy Barry made a valuable point, Cork is not the only place where elected members and the public went sailing by a house with a plaque on the wall without counting the nettles which had appeared. I will not accept responsibility for the comprehensive neglect and philistinism of those who have gone before me. I will co-operate with anybody trying to do something about it, that is the purpose of the study. There is no point in doing anything else.

The Minister for the Environment and I intend to bring forward a package of proposals aimed at strengthening the protection of the architectural heritage for consideration by the Government early next year. Implementation of these proposals will require the Commitment of substantial resources. I consider this to be desirable because of the improved protection which will be afforded to the architectural heritage and the resulting tourism and employment benefits.

Future generations will not thank us if we are seen to have failed to take the necessary action to protect our architectural heritage. We are agreed that it is an important part of our cultural heritage. The convention has two purposes — to reinforce and promote policies for protecting and enhancing the architectural heritage within the territories of parties to the convention and to foster closer European co-operation in defence of that heritage.

The package of proposals will include a number of mandatory provisions as well as other suggestions which might address the territory between private ownership and public responsibility.

I am not making a political point because several Governments have held office since the 1960s but it would be hard for me not to conclude, from looking at some of the crises and issues that are thrown up, that one part of local administration is at times in contention with another. For example, elected members give speeches at meetings in favour of conservation and preservation while at the same time other sections of local government bureaucracy evaluate buildings in terms of their safety and insurance. There is not always a clear consistency between the two. It is also perfectly clear that the whole atmosphere of preservation and conservation, including streetscapes, has suffered from the fact that a kind of physical, linear and engineering preoccupation has informed planning separately from the wider aesthetic, social and communal criteria which are carried in architecture.

I would like to mention one more contentious point. According to the best information available to me, there are only two architects in senior positions in local authorities. That position is not acceptable and it indicates how the physical, functional and linear aspects got a grip on the compositional elements of planning. The architectural eye desperately needs to be widened to include the social definitions that Deputies spoke about. I will bear all these considerations in mind in bringing forward the proposals next year. I thank Deputies for their interest, what they have said and their support for the ratification motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 12 Dec 1996

Convention for Protection of Architectural Heritage of Europe: Motion.

Mr. Higgins

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Dec 1996