I must apologise for the fact that I am a few seconds late. I had expected that there would be a division on the Bill.
I have been given permission to raise the following matter:
Having regard to the archaeological importance of the Wood Quay Site, Dublin, the decisions taken by the Minister for Local Government (a) to suspend the project for Civic Offices and (b) subsequently to sanction it.
I wish to raise the situation relating to the site on Wood Quay, Dublin, the archaeological possibilities of that site, the plan of the Government or the plan of the corporation to erect these municipal offices. The two decisions of the Minister that are relevant to what I want to say are, curiously enough, related to the 13th day of two months. On 13th November, 1973, it was announced that the Government had decided that development of the Winetavern Street site for the municipal offices should cease pending further investigation. That was one decision by the Minister. Then on 13th February, 1974 there was the announcement that the Government had granted permission but that the complex would be moved eastward to give a full view of Christchurch Cathedral and to preserve the old city walls.
I should like to argue that the decision of 13th November was a good decision but that the further investigation which took place was inadequate and, therefore, the decision of 13th February, 1974 was not as good a decision. If I wanted to make some kind of rhetorical flourish out of these two unlucky dates, 13th November and 13th February, and if I had time to do it and if I had the energy to pursue it, in other words if my name was Senator McGlinchey, I could make some kind of an interesting case along those lines but time does not allow it. I do not think I could command the same kind of rhetorical eloquence that the Senator displayed so lavishly over the last couple of days.
The latest statement on this is the statement by the corporation about a fortnight ago to the effect that the corporation was now arguing that the area designated by the National Museum authorities as of prime archaeological importance will not be built on for at least two years. The question arises there, first of all, the degree of investigation which I wish to challenge, and, on the other hand, the fact that we do not know what a site of prime archaeological importance is until an archaeological investigation excavation has taken place. The sites that are being excavated and investigated are only known to be of interest because, in fact, they have been excavated.
Throughout that entire area, and within that whole city wall one has the remains of a Viking civilisation which in medieval times was laid down here and which is of enormous value and importance archaeologically to us and, indeed, to the whole community of nations which is Europe. The fact that they have not been excavated is a fact which simply argues that we do not really know what is there. If we build these large massive buildings on it, the chances are, with these heavy foundations and with the mass of building above it, it may be lost forever. I wish to make that point strongly and I want to talk in terms of this city of ours. I am a country man myself but I am living here, and there are many Dublin city men here.
Several dreadful things have been perpetrated against this city in our own time. Nobody walking along Fitzwilliam Street and looking at the ESB offices, nobody of any sensitivity, could fail to be moved by the violation that was done there. We had the longest Georgian Street in the world and there was a perfect opportunity of keeping a Georgian entirety but now that street has been violated. Everybody regrets that. Therefore, there is an urgency about this sort of situation. If we love the city of Dublin, the seventh city of Christendom, and if we want its best features preserved we must take thought and think deeply before making a major move of the kind envisaged in relation to Wood Quay.
I am not saying that the present Minister has not thought deeply on this subject. The fact that he, in the first place, stalled the project is ample evidence of that but I am going to argue that the amount of evidence available to him was necessarily inadequate. I am not going to argue very strongly in terms of architecture or, indeed, in terms of environment. I am not, for instance, going to argue very strongly, though if I had time I would do it, that the civic offices there employing 2,000 employees, one-third of them would have cars, and situated on a one-way street, will cause tremendous traffic congestion in that area. When those cars come in some place has to be found for these cars to park. This valuable unique site which contains both Viking and Norman remains, and, indeed, later 18th century remains, will be steadily devastated or the danger of that is going to be there. It seems the argument is that it is a bad site environmentally speaking. I am not going to argue too strongly though if I had time I would.
I do not want to argue that, for instance, the desires of the people of the Liberties, the Liberties Association, run counter to this plan because there is a strong desire that in this area there should be a revival of the kind of houses, the kind of proportion between street and house, and a desire that the kind of a living city which was once there in the Liberties should be preserved. There is the fact that this plan may threaten that too. If I had time I would argue that case, but I know that the Minister is strenuously, and, indeed, passionately, committed to the sense of a living city. I think he is very aware—and some of his public statements have made this clear—of the need to revive the centre of Dublin. He has taken considerable interest in it. I am not going to argue, although there was a time when I would, the case for the cattle market site as an alternative site because it looks hideous at the moment. There is no archaelogical interest concerned with that site. It is almost available, perhaps it will take a little longer to make it available, for the civic buildings. It would certainly be well sited. It would be central enough.
I can see from the word "go" the crying need for civic offices. I am aware that there are 2,000 employees who, at the moment, are working in 27 run-down, inadquate and dingy offices all over Dublin and that these employees of the corporation are entitled to proper housing and a proper environment for their work. I know these difficulties. They are there. I know that the Minister is aware of them but I want to talk more about the archaeological dimensions to the entire situation. However, before moving on to that I should like to quote one of our most distinguished architects, Mr. Myles Montgomery, a great literary man, a man who is very much aware of what a city is about, what its traditions are, both literary and architectural, commenting in The Irish Times of 15th November, 1973, he said that, Dublin, with the environment of the corporation, was trying successfully to reproduce the sophisticated image of the great metropolis, skyscrapers, fly-overs, congestion, pollution and all.
I want to concern myself with the archaeological dimension of this area and I want to refer to a meeting, attended by a number of very distinguished archaeologists, which took place in the Mansion House on Tuesday, 12th March, 1974. The following speakers had, very briefly, the following things to say. One of our most distinguished archaeologists, George Hogan, pointed out that in this area of Wood Quay there was an extraordinary wealth of materials available which could be destroyed. I quote:
Wherever work is in progress on any aspect of the Viking civilisation the Dublin material must be taken into consideration. Likewise for Norman and post-Norman studies, results are of equal value and importance.
In other words, Dublin looms large, according to George Hogan, in the whole world of the investigation of Viking and Norman civilisation. This is Dublin, the seventh city of Christendom. It is a city about which we should have as much concern as the Florentine has for Florence or the man of Salzburg has for Salzburg or as have the people of Prague for their city, and who, when the city was devasted, built all those old building again brick by brick. They put first things first. They saw that in their city there was a living symbol of their own dignity, their own sense of themselves.
Thomas Delaney, a professional archaeologist from Belfast, on that occasion in the Mansion House said that:
Some cities such as Bergen have permanent archaelogical units working since the beginning of this century, covering all aspects of investigation of the early remains from initial surveys through excavation to conservation and display. Excavation of sites prior to redevelopment is the norm and the programmes includes, in many cases, preservation of the ancient structures on the sites where they have been discovered. Even some small provincial cities in Britain now have archaeological units which have been established on a permanent basis.
We are talking about Dublin. Brian Scott, a professional archaeologist from Belfast and a specialist in conservation, said that:
The preservation of the remains which have been excavated in Dublin is quite feasible and would be in line with work carried out elsewhere.
Richard Haworth, a professional archaeologist and a researcher, pointed out that:
The cost of funding excavation and of a permanent archaeological unit to deal with excavation arising out of urban renewal is automatically thought to have to come from central or local public funds.
He points out that the third source of funding is the actual site developer. A figure of 1 per cent of the total cost of redevelopment would, in most cases, cover the necessary prior archaeological investigations of the site. Such a method of funding excavation of urban sites is practised on the Continent.
I could go on and quote from Nuala Burke of UCD, Peter Harbison, another archaeologist, and Séamus Caulfield. Séamus Caulfield raised one important point where he said that:
A common and erroneous view is that such a unit would have a staffing problem. In fact, large numbers of students of archaeology graduate every year from Irish universities and a sizeable number go on to take post-graduate degrees in the subject. The question of a staffing problem for a Dublin archaeological unit therefore does not arise.
I would point out that at present there are 21 archaeological students doing the MA in UCD who are hungry for the opportunity to work on sites. The site in Wood Quay is ideal in this connection.
I now wish to move on to the problem that I raised at the beginning. It is connected with the investigation of the problem and how well it has been carried out. The situation as it stands is that we have not got in Dublin a city archaeologist. We did not have a city architect until a few days ago and it is to the eternal credit of the Minister that he has appointed him because many architectural problems in the city have gone by default through lack of a city architect. I would also like to compliment the Minister on the fact that about six months ago he appointed a housing co-ordinator. In other words, he is thinking of the patterns that seem to be relevant and right in this connection, but what we need with regard to the archaeological dimension of Dublin is either an archaeological unit, perhaps still attached to the National Museum, or a city archaeologist who would draw up a comprehensive plan on what was archaeologically available in the city. That plan would be in the hands of the corporation and would be there for reference to any developer who wanted to erect a new building in Dublin.
I am not arguing that we should just look at the past and forget about the future. In fact, if I ever go down in this House as having said anything worthwhile I would go down as having said, over and over again, that we need a Minister for the Environment. I should like to suggest that what one needs is an overall plan which would be worked out by the city architect and the city archaeologist. As things stand we have an assistant keeper of the National Museum who is part-time at work on that site and who, being a civil servant, cannot come into the open and say publicly what is happening there. Looking around the city you can see that the lack of a co-ordinated plan is producing, over and over again, gapped and mutilated squares and buildings. You can see that that whole area of the Liberties and the whole area which involves Christchurch, St. Patrick's Cathedral and Dublin Castle is increasingly being neglected. That could be a very great tourist amenity to which people could come and which, if it were built up, would be a marvellous amenity both human and aesthetic for visitors to Dublin. The city of Dublin as it stands is becoming more and more ugly and inadequate every day.
I should like particularly to appeal to Senators who are Dublin people— Senators Halligan, Harte, Mullins, Kennedy, Holmes, Boland, Yeats, Lord Iveagh, FitzGerald, McGrath, Ryan and Sanfey—to put as much pressure as they can on the relevant authorities to see that this heritage which they have in stone, brick and in archaeological remains will be preserved and treasured by us. On a national level a Minister for the Environment should be immediately appointed.
We know that natural gas, oil, zinc and mining have to be developed. Nobody wants to stop it, and no archaeologist would want to stop it. The future archaeologist will think about this building but side by side with that there has to be a concern and a tenderness for what is there from the past.
I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister for Local Government is thinking along the right lines in this direction. My only feeling at the moment is that his first decision was a good one. I know the enormous pressures that came on him with regard to his second decision, but I would ask him to think again about that area, about what is going to be lost, about what the future generations will have to say about what we, at this stage, did with Dublin. Once Dublin was really one of the most beautiful cities in the world but at the moment it is on the brink of becoming one of the ugliest. In fact, even if we should lose on that front— the front of Wood Quay, and I hope we do not lose—we at least do not lose on the others.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to this possibility, that there is an enormous opportunity to make reparation for the sins of the past in this direction. Whatever he do in terms of archaeological and achitectural planning will be something that our children may ultimately bless us for. I am sorry for having overrun my time.
