asked the Taoiseach whether he will make a statement about the present situation with respect to the Wood Quay National Monument.
I note the Taoiseach is not present. Should we wait for him?
Private Notice Question. - Wood Quay National Monument.
The Chair has no control over which Minister takes a question.
Is it intended that the Taoiseach will answer this question?
I will answer on behalf of the Taoiseach.
I see.
It was decided unanimously by the Supreme Court yesterday that Dublin Corporation have a valid and subsisting consent to the completion of the contract for the erection of civic offices at Wood Quay. The Government have no legal or statutory powers to withdraw or revoke this consent. The only matter outstanding is the question of further archaeological excavations on part of the site. The corporation have indicated that they will give adequate time to permit of this excavation within the physical constraints of the site. Discussions on this matter can now take place.
Is the Minister who is speaking on behalf of the Taoiseach, which I very much regret in these particular circumstances, aware of the facts of the case? Is he aware that in a statement issued by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Wyse, on 10 October reference was made to the granting of permission to the corporation to proceed with the building of civic offices in the future tense—the corporation will be granted permission to proceed to the building of civic offices when the excavation is completed and if new archaeological finds of great importance have not been made? Is he aware that in the Seanad in December Deputy Wyse also spoke about the recommendation he was about to make to the Government and the decision the Government were going to take? Is he aware that, while both these statements were being made, it had not been disclosed to the public or to either House that a consent had been given under section 14 of the National Monuments Act, 1930, on 29 August 1978?
Was the Taoiseach aware that the Minister of State had made these statements relating to the future that a consent had been given and, if so, is the Taoiseach satisfied that this behaviour on behalf of the Minister of State was in accordance with the principles which should guide Members of this House?
The Deputy appears to be under a misconception in regard to what the Minister of State's remarks related. In the Seanad on 7 December he was speaking of a recommendation to the Government in the context of extensions of time to permit of archaeological excavations, the matter to which I referred in my reply and on which the corporation have expressed themselves as entirely willing to meet the interests concerned to allow such archaeological excavations to take place in order to ensure that any finds can be secured. I understand that in relation to the particular work which gave rise to the injunction proceedings, the excavations have been completed and no find has been discovered. There are further areas where there may be such finds and the corporation have expressed their willingness to co-operate with the interests concerned with a view to giving any necessary extensions to allow such excavations to take place. It was in that context that the Minister of State was speaking at column 666 of the Official Report of the Seanad.
The position now is that the consent dated 29 August 1978, referred to by Deputy FitzGerald, authorising the corporation as owners of the site to proceed with the erection of civic offices, is the issue which was the nub of the Supreme Court decision and that consent has been validated, five to nil, by the Supreme Court. As far as the law is concerned, the issue is closed, but further discussions can take place between the corporation and interested archaeological parties with a view to granting extensions of time to allow the appropriate excavations that may be necessary to take place.
Is the Minister aware that the area that has been professionally excavated since last night is regarded as central to the whole excavation and may be the heart of the original settlement in Dublin——
It is not.
——and the expectation of the archaeologists is that the number of finds in the area now under destruction is likely to equal those discovered in the area recently excavated, around 1,500, and that the area is crucial? Could the Minister explain how he reconciles the statement he has just made with the statement issued by the Minister of State on 10 October in which he said that when the excavation is completed, unless some new archaeological find of great importance has been made, the corporation will be granted permission to proceed with the building of civic offices? That was a statement that the Government were going to do something at a future point and in certain circumstances. He now tells us that the permission to build the civic offices was given in August and that they are proceeding under that permission. How can he reconcile those two statements and how can we avoid the conclusion that the statement of the Minister of State misled the public and the Seanad subsequently?
The Deputy is still under a misconception. I thought I made myself perfectly clear. The building as such is of no concern to the Office of Public Works or any Government Department. That is a matter for Dublin Corporation. The question of the consent between the Office of Public Works and Dublin Corporation was the matter of contention in the Supreme Court. That consent has been validated five-nil by the Supreme Court. That is the law as it stands. The Government at all stages—and this is the burden of what Deputy Wyse had to say in the Seanad—were anxious to help and the corporation were very anxious to assist in ensuring that full archaeological excavation took place. That is still the position: to ensure—I repeat it and the corporation have made it plain today in a statement—that such assistance will be forthcoming and any extensions of time or adjournments of construction work will be given to enable full archaeological investigation to take place.
Will the Minister not accept that at 6.15 p.m. yesterday bulldozers moved in to tear down and destroy many layers of civilisation recorded in that particular place, and that there was no possibility of any archaeologist intervening?
The Chair cannot allow a further debate.
How does the Minister reconcile his statement with what the Minister of State said on 10 October that, if certain conditions were fulfilled, when the excavations were completed, and unless some new archaeological finds of great importance were made, the corporation would be granted permission to proceed with the building of the civic offices? That was a reference to something the Government were going to do in the future. It was not a reference to what had been done. How can the Minister now say that the Government have no function in the matter of granting permission to the corporation to build civic offices when the Minister of State made that statement?
It is not just me saying that the Government have no function in the matter. The Supreme Court stated it very fully in their judgment as reported in today's paper. Basically what the Supreme Court have found is that the Government do not have any function in the matter and that it was purely a matter of the validation of a consent, which they have now validated and authorised Dublin Corporation to proceed. That is the answer to the Deputy's first question. The other matter the Deputy raised was the question of work in progress today and this evening. The work has finished now.
The damage is done, the destruction is completed.
That work was conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist and his staff and was fully supervised. No archaeological finds have been discovered. That work has now been completed. If there are other areas of interest to archaeologists at the site, these areas will be opened to such archaeologists for full examination and full facility will be given by Dublin Corporation, I understand, towards the proper excavation and proper archaeological investigation required to ascertain if there are any such finds in any such areas. Therefore, full co-operation will be given. Regarding the site that has been cleared today, the work was done under archaeological expert uspervision and no particular matter was found.
Dr. Fitzgerald
My information is that——
We will have no further questions. We are not going to have a debate.
I wish to complete a question on this matter.
There is no exceptional case here.
I am probing the details of the Minister's reply because they are not in accordance with known facts. Is the Minister aware that there was not such supervision and that observers noticed that archaeologists were not present to supervise? Secondly, will he accept that the decision of the Supreme Court relates to their validation of an order of 29 August, knowledge of which was suppressed in the Seanad and kept from the people by the Minister of State, who pretended that this was something yet to happen when he said that the corporation would be granted permission to proceed?
This is not in order; it is purely argument and debate. I do not think there should be any further discussion. I am calling the next business. I have allowed ten minutes, which is exceptional.
(Interruptions.)
There will be no further questions.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to ask a question.
The last executive Government action in this matter was on 13 February 1974 when the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully, informed Dublin Corporation that the matter had been further considered by the Government, and he conveyed his sanction to the revision of the scheme as proposed. That was the last Governmental executive action on this matter, and I want that on the record.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to ask one question. I am not trying to argue.
I am calling the next business.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is it not a fact that the Commissioners of Public Works—the Minister is not even listening to me so he cannot argue—is it not a fact that the Commissioners of Public Works on 29 August last were acting as agents for and with the approval of the Government? Surely if they gave consent then, in the light of the present facts they can revoke that consent. Will the Government ask them to do that?
I am surprised at Deputy Fitzpatrick as a lawyer not being aware of his facts. The Government cannot legally or under statute or in any way of law withdraw the consent that has been given. Furthermore, I repeat that the last executive action exercised by a Government in this matter was on 13 February 1974.
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan-Monaghan): The fact is that the place was declared a national monument since that and this Government are the first Government in the history of this State to have destroyed a national monument, the heritage of this country, and the Minister of State misled the Seanad—
Deputy Fitzpatrick said he was going to raise no argument. I have given an unusually long time for this question. Deputy Fox, please.
I want to raise a point of order. The Minister has run away. Before the Minister of State does the same thing, is he going to make a statement to this House in respect of the manner in which he misled the House and the people by his statements in October and in the Seanad——
That is not a point of order.
(Interruptions.)
A Deputy
He is running away. They are all running away.
We do not run away, but ye were kicked out.