Vol. 435 No. 5
12 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht if he has satisfied himself that the scope and pace of excavation of the rich archaeological heritage of our capital city is entirely developmental; and the proposals, if any, he has for a change in this situation.
The ideal situation is that only researched excavation should take place. In reality, if development of the medieval city is to take place, interference with its archaelogical remains is inevitable. In this connection, the National Monuments Advisory Committee recommended in its urban archaeology guidelines that development should have minimal interference with archaeological layers, thereby conserving archaelogical deposits for future discovery and examination.
A large number of excavations have taken place over the past 20 to 30 years and the results of these have not yet been fully assimilated. Any future research should take account of knowledge obtained from earlier excavations — not only in terms of findings but in terms of methodology. Large scale archaeological research is now a matter for the discovery programme, which has identified the late bronze age and early iron age as the priority areas for study. No doubt in due course, they will turn their attention to medieval Dublin to work on the preserved archaeological deposits.
I thank the Minister for his reply which covers many matters about which I am not directly familiar. The Minister is aware how developer-driven development in Dublin ultimately leads to the discovery of substantial archaeological or other significant remains which it would be desirable to preserve. However, because the project is development led rather than archaeologically or historically led, in the absence of an adequate budget for such work at local or national level, we find ourselves taking fire brigade action to preserve objects with the developer's gun to our heads, with the result that we have to run to the Minister seeking money. Indeed, the Minister recently gave us £300,000 to preserve the major find of Geneval's Tower near Dublin Castle. Would the Minister see any advantage in bringing local authorities together to try to prepare a programme? Should there be a separate budget which would permit local authorities to investigate their substantial historical and archaeological resources in advance of a developer moving in, or as a tourist or educational activity in its own right?
The Deputy's points are very interesting. The discovery programme has operated in such a way that two periods, the late bronze age and the early iron age have been picked out for concentration. The terms of reference of the discovery programme do not stop it moving on to urban archaeology but it is a matter of resource and time. This is a very serious question. One is dividing attention between development and responsibility not just to this generation but to future generations in relation to the value of what is there. In relation to Geneval's Tower, I took an initiative to preserve and restore it. I am delighted the Deputy has seemed to indicate that local authorities would take responsibility in these areas. I made the point that the walls of Dublin are the responsibility of Dublin City Council who may be assisted to exercise its responsibility. I agree that in funding local authorities we should have a provision such as the Deputy advocated. It is an aspect of good planning. Temporary, short term and medium term strategies are not always acceptable. When one comes across sensitives sites now, one seeks not to close off the possibilities for future archaeological research.
I appreciate what the Deputy said because I was put under great pressure to produce money quickly to save the tower and I was glad to do so. From all the debate that took place, I have learned that the local authorities are crucial and I share the Deputy's view that they must be encouraged to take responsibility because they also have the planning function. One can imagine what would arise if the planning function was vested in local authorities and archaeological responsibility somewhere else. We all have a responsibility to co-operate to make sure that our heritage is handed on.
I am sorry to hear the Minister's view is that Dublin Corporation was not as anxious as he to preserve sites. The members were certainly very concerned to preserve this major find and would have liked more of the surroundings to be preserved. Would the Minister accept that given the current state of financing of local authorities, while they might have a strong desire to preserve sites, the only time they have money for excavation is in the context of a development? I do not seek immediate solutions, but perhaps the Minister will initiate a series of discussions to ensure that we do not have too many crises. Since the last crisis another private developer has discovered Isolde's Tower and luckily he intends to preserve it because he sees its value, but that was just luck. This should be set on a more satisfactory plane for all involved.
I appreciated the concern of the elected members of Dublin Corporation in the event about which we spoke. I would like to see the discovery programme reach urban archaeology quicker than envisaged at present but it is a question of resources. When one discovers something like the tower, which we referred to briefly, it is designated as a problem. If we go from one problem to another we will never have a policy. One gets rid of a problem, hands it over to someone else and says it is somebody else's problem but meanwhile the clock is ticking away in relation to the pressure the developer claims to be under and is in turn passing on. I do not regard that as satisfactory and I will certainly co-operate with different authorities. If the Department of the Environment want to discuss with my Department the mechanisms for approaching this in a more orderly way, I will be delighted to co-operate.
