With the new heritage law, the government encountered obstacles in the Chamber

Prague - The government encountered hurdles with the new heritage law in the Chamber. Today, the deputies rejected the proposal, ending its legislative journey. According to the Ministry of Culture, the law was supposed to streamline and increase transparency in the care of the heritage fund. However, it faced considerable opposition from many critics in expert circles. Dozens of amendments were submitted in the Chamber regarding the proposal.

For the rejection of the bill, as put forth in the second reading by Petr Bendl (ODS), Josef Nekl (KSČM), and Jana Lorencová (ANO), 84 out of 164 present deputies, including those from the ruling ČSSD and ANO movement, voted in favor. Against were 53 members of the lower chamber.

Some deputies criticized the proposal, among other things, for not bringing systematic changes and instead preserving the current concept and failing to address the criticized duality of heritage care. Minister of Culture Daniel Herman (KDU-ČSL) spoke of the law as a socially necessary norm, supported by many significant entities active in heritage care. According to him, critics often used misleading and false claims.

The proposal was drafted by the Ministry of Culture because the current law from the late 1980s is outdated, as it does not anticipate the transition to a market economy and the restoration of private ownership. The new rules were intended to ensure that "current developments do not lead to damage and loss of cultural heritage".

For instance, the proposal would have clarified the role of the National Heritage Institute in granting permissions for modifications to monuments or historical building surveys, changed the conditions for issuing restoration permits, and differentiated between rescue and research archaeological surveys. It would also have anchored the participation of associations in the protection of architectural heritage.

Property owners in heritage reserves and zones that are not classified as cultural monuments were to gain better standing. They were to receive contributions from the state similar to those given to owners of cultural monuments.

The law was to grant authorities the right to act on their own initiative when a cultural monument is threatened. The expropriation institute was also to be modified to allow for its use.

The law would have changed the proclamation of heritage reserves and the issuance of protection plans for heritage sites. According to the government proposal, a council for the conception of world heritage sites was to be established along with several expert advisory bodies of the Ministry of Culture. Additionally, a new electronic system for the registration of the heritage fund would have been created through the proposal.

The Association of Associations for the Protection and Development of Cultural Heritage and the Association of Professional Workers in Heritage Care pointed out that the law does not protect the most valuable and simultaneously the most threatened part of the domestic cultural heritage - historical cities.