The Heritage Act will face an effort to reject it in the Chamber

Prague - Members of Parliament are dissatisfied with the government's version of the new law on the protection of the cultural heritage fund. The legislation will face an attempt to be rejected in the chamber due to its bureaucratic nature and lack of clarity. This was suggested today by representatives of the opposition ODS and KSČM, as well as the ruling movement ANO. Other members of Parliament have prepared dozens of amendments to the proposal, which will be evaluated by the parliamentary cultural committee. The lower chamber is expected to decide on the fate of the law around June.

According to the Ministry of Culture, the law will enable the more effective care of the cultural heritage fund. The proposal more precisely defines and emphasizes the public interest in the protection of monuments. It will provide authorities with the tools to intervene in cases where a monument is neglected by its owner. It is set to introduce fines of up to eight million crowns depending on the severity of the offense. The cultural committee recommended the adoption of the proposal with amendments concerning procedures during archaeological research or the possibility of continuing to declare monuments of local significance.

Members of Parliament criticized the proposal for, among other things, the dual-track approach to heritage care, the absence of protection for heritage reserves, or intangible cultural heritage. The largest number of amendments were proposed by František Adámek and Antonín Seďa (both ČSSD), who wanted to address 23 topics ranging from urbanism to the right to state subsidies for the repair of unprotected buildings, as well as strengthening public involvement in decision-making.

The new legislation will, according to the ministry, allow property owners to apply for grants for properties that are not protected but are subject to various restrictions due to their location in heritage areas. However, according to Josef Nekl (KSČM), the law creates misleading expectations given the limited amount of subsidies.

The law is also set to regulate conditions for architectural historical surveys or archaeological research and strengthen the powers of the heritage inspection. TOP 09 proposed that the state should pay for rescue archaeological research through a heritage or archaeological institute, rather than the builder on whose land the research is conducted, or the municipality.

The law has critics among heritage professionals and restorers. The Association of Societies for the Protection and Development of Cultural Heritage and the Association of Professional Heritage Care Workers criticized the proposal for not protecting the most valuable and simultaneously most endangered part of the domestic cultural heritage - historical cities.