asked the Minister for Finance if it is intended to put any limit on the time given to the various archaeological authorities to investigate the Wood Quay site.
25.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Wood Quay (Dublin) Preservation.
24.
asked the Minister for Finance if the Government will agree to the preservation in perpetuity of the Wood Quay site, should this be the final recommendation of the interested archaeological authority.
26.
asked the Minister for Finance whether the future of Wood Quay site will be the subject of discussion with interested bodies; whether the Friends of Mediaeval Dublin will be included in the discussions; and if he will make a comprehensive statement regarding the future excavation of the site.
27.
asked the Minister for Finance the formal decision which has been taken by him on the national monument at Wood Quay, Dublin.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to answer Questions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 together.
On a point of order, we have only two or three minutes of Question Time left and the Minister proposes to take four or five questions together. Is it possible to have them deferred until tomorrow?
The Chair cannot refuse to take questions so long as Question Time has not ended.
Could we do it by agreement?
We had better hear the answer.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I respectfully agree that it would be impossible to deal with questions on this very important topic in about a minute and a half. The reasonable thing would be to adjourn Question Time until tomorrow.
It would not be fair to the Minister.
I have no objection.
Deputies cannot anticipate that they will be given unlimited time to deal with the questions irrespective of their numbers. It will depend on the relevancy of the supplementaries and the answer the Minister gives.
(Cavan-Monaghan): If the questions are taken now the Chair will not be able to give time whether or not it is reasonable to do so.
The Minister should answer the question while the time is still not up.
No final decision has been taken about the future of the National Monument on the site of the proposed Civic Centre at Wood Quay. Pending a decision, permission is being granted to the National Museum to continue the archaeological investigation of the site.
The question of holding further discussions with interested bodies will be considered before a final decision is taken.
Would it be possible for the Minister to repeat his reply. I just did not hear it.
Would the Minister repeat the reply?
(Cavan-Monaghan): I suggest we leave it over until tomorrow.
No final decision has been taken about the future of the National Monument on the site of the proposed Civic Centre at Wood Quay. Pending a decision, permission is being granted to the National Museum to continue the archaeological investigation of the site.
The question of holding further discussions with interested bodies will be considered before a final decision is taken.
Could the Minister say with which interested bodies discussions will be entered into?
I said the question of holding further discussions with interested bodies will be considered before a final decision is taken.
Which interested bodies are recognised by the Minister?
The National Monuments Advisory Council, the Friends of Mediaeval Dublin, the local government and public service unions, the Royal Irish Academy and the Irish Hotels Federation.
Could the Minister clarify his reply to my Question No. 28. When precisely was the formal decision of the Government taken and when was it formally communicated to the city manager?
There is a question about that later.
What questions are we dealing with?
Questions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27.
Surely it is unfair that supplementaries on these questions should be terminated at this point.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Might I ask——
Order, please.
(Cavan-Monaghan): May I ask one short supplementary question? Would the Minister clarify the statement which appeared in today's papers in regard to an extension of the time for a period of seven weeks? There seems to be some misunderstanding about what exactly is meant by the statement from the Government Information Services to the effect that a further extension of seven weeks was being given. For what?
For excavation.
Is that the only time being allowed?
(Cavan-Monaghan): Does that mean that at the end of seven weeks the matter is ended and building will proceed?
I did not say that.
(Cavan-Monaghan): What exactly did the Minister of State say?
It is very interesting to discover that so many Opposition Deputies have changed their minds. The Deputy must remember that it was his Government that decided away back in 1974 to give planning permission.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The High Court judgment changed all that.
Let us not confuse the people. If some people change their minds they are at liberty to do so and I have no objection to their doing so, but I very much resent the efforts being made to confuse the minds of the people of Dublin on this whole issue. Remember, the Coalition Government made the decision.
Would the Minister of State clarify that?
(Cavan-Monaghan): Would the Minister of State clarify the confusion that has arisen because of a statement by his office that an extension of seven weeks is to be given?
For excavation.
(Cavan-Monaghan): And what is to happen at the end of seven weeks?
That is a matter that will be considered before the end of the seven weeks.
Does the seven week period date from 6 October when works were due to resume or from today?
From 6 October.
What does the seven weeks mean? Is it understood that ample time will be given for excavation? If it is merely seven weeks until a further decision is taken, that is not implied in the statement. Secondly, does this decision relate to the whole of the site or, as has been suggested, to only part of it?
It is really a further two months of excavation.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper. Time is up for Questions. There is still a question relating to Wood Quay on the Order Paper. We have already had nine supplementary questions on this.
Could I ask the Minister of State if it would be fair to take from that that the Government have yet to make a final decision on this and that the Minister of State is open to argument on the question of the future of the site and the seven weeks period is no indication of the Minister's estimate of the time required for archaeological excavation but is rather the time the Government need to make up their minds?
I do not know exactly what question the Deputy is asking.
Would it be fair, and we want to be fair, to take from the reply of the Minister of State that the seven week period stated from 6 October is a period not estimated by the Minister of State as necessary to complete the excavations on the site but rather the period necessary for the Government to make up their minds about the final form and shape this site should take? There is a difference.
We will not expand this any further.
Are we to assume that the Government are retaining their option to destroy this national monument?
If the Deputy wants to misinterpret what I said he is at liberty to do so.