I am the head of heritage services and capital works delivery at the Office of Public Works, OPW. I am joined by my colleague, Ken Moore, who is the principal officer for the national monuments division.
I thank the committee for the invitation to appear and to provide some input to this process. I hope the views I will offer on behalf of the commissioners will help inform the committee's consideration of the issues involved from our point of view. I know the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Department representatives will have given the committee a comprehensive and broad-ranging analysis of the Bill from their particular perspective, so I will confine my remarks to the OPW remit and the issues that concern us most directly. Though we have a critical role in these matters, and have some considerable longevity as an organisation working in the heritage conservation area, we do not have the broad heritage responsibilities that the Department has. I will, therefore, aim not to stray into areas that I know the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and his officials may have already addressed with the committee.
The involvement of the commissioners in the protection of national monuments goes back a considerable period. The first group of monuments taken into State care were the structures at the Rock of Cashel in 1874. Subsequently, a significant number of sites were added to the list and, today, the OPW is responsible for the care of almost 1,000 monuments at 768 locations. This includes sites that are directly owned by the State, as well as properties that are in guardianship, that is to say, they are privately held but have been entrusted to State care in perpetuity. They range from megalithic tombs of the neolithic period to medieval churches and castles, industrial mills and historic buildings of more recent times.
This estate does not represent the entirety of national monuments in Ireland. Many structures and sites around the country that are designated as national monuments are in private ownership and where the commissioners have no involvement. This is an important distinction and can cause confusion where there is a misperception that the commissioners are responsible for monuments generally throughout the country when, in fact, our remit is strictly defined.
From the earliest point, it has been clear that one of the core functions of the commissioners is to ensure the preservation of the monuments in its care, and this was a singular focus in the 1930 legislation. Though there was mention of opening monuments to the public in the 1930 Act, we should note it was not a central theme at that time, and I will return to this aspect of public engagement with national monuments more directly later in my remarks.
In the modern era, since the departmental forerunner to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage was created in the mid-1990s, the commissioners have undertaken an explicitly executive role, caring for national monuments in State care and working in tandem with the Minister and our colleagues in the Department. The commissioners, therefore, have a client relationship with the Department to look after the interests of the national monuments estate of which they are guardians or own.
The commissioners are explicitly tasked to look after the day-to-day job of physically protecting and conserving the monuments in their care and opening a number of them to the public as visitor attractions. While we are, therefore, the body responsible for national monuments in State care, on the spot, it is also true to say that responsibility for national monuments in OPW care is split between the Commissioner of Public Works and the Department which has statutory responsibility for the ministerial consent process, for example, and performs the core legislative role in relation to archaeology. The Department, therefore, has primary responsibility at Government level for the broad protection of heritage and is the senior body nationally that oversees the sector. In this role, it is the main sponsor of the current Bill and we in the OPW are a key State stakeholder and actor.
I will now address some of the principal provisions of the Bill and how they relate to the OPW. The Bill provides that funds relating to the enacted Bill are to be provided to the Department by the Oireachtas and a similar provision is made as regards the commissioners. In addition, provision is made to allow the Minister grant funds to the commissioners. Currently, the commissioners are funded through Vote 13 for the conservation, maintenance, operation and presentation of heritage sites in their care. This means we are granted resources for staff wages, materials and maintenance costs related to the upkeep of sites in our care. We are also allocated funds for the wages of staff and other operational costs related to those sites that have a significant visitor operation.
We are not, however, directly funded for the larger elective conservation projects we undertake specifically in the national monuments estate and we have to plan carefully for these. We are also not funded for new visitor infrastructure such as visitor buildings, car parks and toilets. Funding for these needs had been, in the last formal rearrangement of the respective responsibilities between the Department and OPW in 2003 to 2004, intended to be channelled through the Department, and the measure in the Bill gives that understanding legislative effect. I would add we have an excellent working relationship with our colleagues in the Department and we work closely on the matters of capital funding for the national monument estate.
In recent years, the commissioners’ funding for national monuments has been supplemented by additional moneys from Fáilte Ireland. Welcome though these have been, it is clearly the case these resources from Fáilte Ireland can only be for visitor projects and cannot be applied to core conservation works.
While referring to funding, I should also mention the rural regeneration and development funding channel that has emerged in recent years. The OPW, like other public bodies, is eligible to apply and has been successful in some applications to date. Again, this has made funding available for visitor facilities rather than conservation works. Other external funding opportunities are also available through various EU programmes that are designed to support initiatives in cultural heritage. We will remain alive to the possibilities these present.
The part of the Bill dealing with monuments is a major part of the legislation and covers a range of core matters, including a system for the protection of newly discovered archaeological sites, a single register of monuments and management by local authorities or the commissioners of registered monuments in the ownership or guardianship of a local authority or the Minister, as the case may be. The commissioners welcome the creation of a single register of monuments and we believe it would clarify a considerable amount of confusion as to the status of a broad range of sites throughout the country. We are clear about the status of sites in our own care but acknowledge the value of this measure to address the lack of clarity surrounding a multiplicity of sites not in State care throughout the country.
The preservation role for sites in State care, by either the commissioners or local authorities, has always been understood, of course, particularly historically at the time of the original 1930 Act. However, over time, this has been obscured somewhat by the different arrangements that have arisen since. The new Bill, as proposed, gives the commissioners’ management regime a stronger legislative basis that is more reflective of the existing operating framework and better recognises the position of the commissioners under the arrangements. I will not continue with that point. The committee has the remainder of my note on it.
Part of the proposed Bill relates to the treatment of world heritage sites in domestic law. The 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage was ratified by Ireland in 1992 without the enactment of any domestic implementing legislation. This Bill will give the term "world heritage site" a legal basis in law, for the first time, thus strengthening the legal standing of the use of the term in county development plans, as adopted by planning authorities. The adoption of development plan objectives is one of the principal means by which management plans for the current world heritage sites in the State are implemented, and the commissioners rely on them significantly at the two world heritage sites for which we are responsible, Brú na Bóinne and Sceilg Mhichíl.
In discussing world heritage sites, I should perhaps point out that the commissioners have no formal statutory role in the designation of sites. The Bill provides for appropriate public consultation processes to be put in place before nominating further world heritage sites. This is designed to ensure future designations are done on a partnership approach with the full involvement and commitment of local communities. Recognising that the commissioners manage many of the most significant heritage landscapes around the country and have a long record of managing the two world heritage landscapes, we anticipate working closely with the Department in any future processes and will seek to make a positive contribution wherever possible.
A provision in the current legislation requires ministerial consent to all works at or near a national monument. This provision applies equally to monuments in the care of the commissioners and, currently, we must apply to the Department through the normal channels where qualifying works are contemplated. The time required for a consent process can vary and is determined by the complexity of the proposals. The Department may seek additional design information, engineering reports etc. There are provisions in the Bill to rationalise the licence system and reduce the regulatory burden somewhat, including a provision to exempt certain works at registered monuments. As users of the system and familiar as we are with some of the practical issues involved in meeting the necessary measures to protect monuments, the commissioners welcome these provisions and hope they will streamline our work considerably.
I have, in this short contribution, focused on a small number of matters of direct relevance to the commissioners at the Office of Public Works. I am conscious that the broader responsibility for the Bill lies with the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and I am sure a fuller range of issues will be addressed by him and his officials. I am happy, however, if members of the committee wish to engage in any supplementary discussions and I hope I can be helpful to them in their consideration of these matters.
