Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Dec 1978

Vol. 90 No. 7

Wood Quay Site: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to make an order to preserve indefinitely the Viking site at Wood Quay, already designated a National Monument, in view of the many other sites in Dublin available for civic offices.—(Senator Martin.)

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I think it is worth reminding the House that, while there are deficiencies in the national monuments code which should long since have been repaired and which it is to our discredit that they have not been repaired, the code as drafted and crafted in 1930 provided for coping with and dealing with the very issue that is facing us today in this motion, because the Act contemplates, as well as the preservation of national monuments, their destruction also. It provides an orderly and lawful procedure whereby, with the consent of those given the duty of preservation, a national monument as defined in the Act can be destroyed.

This is a story which is so very well known that it need not be told again here by anyone but it is a story of high drama and extraordinary irony. Senator Dowling made a very sincere and feeling contribution last evening on the position of Dublin Corporation. I do not think we can look at this issue unless we approach it from the standpoint of those whose work and efforts were directed in one direction, as that work and these efforts must have been—the direction of creating a proper, efficient set of buildings in which to administer the services to the citizens of Dublin which it is the duty of Dublin Corporation to administer. That work and effort over many years led to the bringing together, an extremely difficult task, of this four-acre site. Here are the corporation, concerned as it was their duty to be, with creating a proper centre for the administration of their services: here they find themselves, having done their work of creating such a site, in fact unfolding in doing so the site, as it has been described, of Dublin's birthplace. What an extraordinary, dramatic situation. Concerned with creating a monument now, they discover a great monument of the past.

Therefore, anyone who reaches the conclusion which I have reached that this national monument, this site of Dublin's birthplace, must be preserved would be lacking in all feeling, I think—and some have shown at least that they have not fully understood the situation of the corporation, not fully shared the feeling that I have for those officials and those people who have done the work they have done in bringing about and creating this site—if he did not appreciate what the corporation have done. They have found what has been described on oath in the High Court by an undisputed authority as a treasure beyond price; what another authority, now alas deceased, described as a national monument as Tara is a national monument; described by another as the first major city of the Vikings outside Scandinavia built on virgin soil. The corporation, concerned to erect a building to serve the citizens of today, have discovered what another has described as the most important excavation in northern Europe; what another authority, quoted yesterday in this House—and I have looked at his curriculum vitae and his authority is undisputed—described as of greater international significance than the famous Russian excavations at Novgorod; what yet another, again cited in this House yesterday, and again whose curriculum vitae establishes his authority, referred to as a key site for the history of western Europe as a whole.

This is the nature of the find. This is the nature of the national monument. This is no archaeologically expendable monument. This, in archaeological terms, is of inestimable, immeasurable value.

It was contemplated, as I said, by the Act that a national monument might be destroyed with the consent of the commissioners and in this case the joint consent of the commissioners and Dublin Corporation. Therefore, a balance must be found. There can be nothing absolute in relation to this matter: there can be no question, for example, of some archaeological discovery not of such importance being allowed to be an obstacle to the solution of some current urgent problem of this city or of this nation. There can be nothing absolute about that. It is obvious that it would be unthinkable, for example, if some fine existing building should not exist where it does, simply because at some stage before it was created something of some archaeological significance was discovered. Therefore it is a matter of balance. There is nothing absolute either about economic or financial consideration. Someone in the course of this controversy has said that if we destroy the national monument for the economic elements involved, in principle we might as well sell the Book of Kells. In principle, if we give an absolute priority to economic, financial and, I dare say, even social considerations, I would say to this House that there is no justification for the continued expenditure of public money on a whole host of matters which are justifiable only in terms which are non-economic, non-financial. How do you justify any expenditure on the National Museum? How do you justify any expenditure on the National Gallery? How do you justify any expenditure on the universities or on any other institute of learning, any of which are engaged in the operations of pure research, the advancement of knowledge itself? You cannot do so if economic considerations, financial considerations, even social considerations in their crudest terms and forms are totally to determine this fact.

I do not know what is the solution to this site. I do not profess to know what the Corporation's full needs are. I do not profess to know what can be done on the site which is not part of the national monument. I do not think it is relevant for this House to hear what my view is as to how that area shall be planned. I do not think it is relevant for this House to engage in town planning. It is not our duty: it is not our function. But it is our duty and it is our function to speak to the executive as legislators, where the power is in the executive, and to draw their attention to the choices they have to make and the purity of mind that they must bring to this problem, the total bona fides involved and required. I do not suggest that anyone to date, at any level—it is not necessary for my thesis and I do not know it; I do not believe it—has been acting in other than the most total bona fides. It is not necessary that anyone should feel that he is defeated in this matter, whatever the solution. What I do argue most strongly is that if it is economic, if it is financial, then it is for the Government to provide the funds to ensure that the national monument element of that site which includes the environs as defined in the Act, the approaches to it, is not damaged.

Whether after due time and after a great deal more knowledge than anyone has at the moment, whether at the end of the excavation which should be permitted, which should not be interfered with, whether at the end of that work, whether that monument should be preserved on the site is a matter for another day. What is for today is to preserve the possibility and the opportunity of that and for that, and if this involves the pain to the corporation or any officials in the corporation of the loss and the sacrifice, if it involves them in a sense that they have wasted much of their lives, a great deal of their energies—this happens in life many times and hard decisions have to be made and pain has to be inflicted and pain has to be borne and if it is the right thing to do for us to preserve this treasure beyond price—not to spend it like we spend pages of the Book of Kells—then we must see that the cost of that is borne by the community.

It does not seem to me tenable that there is no other place in Dublin which can be found for use for the purposes for which this site has been created and brought together. I find this impossible to believe. I also find it impossible to believe that anyone in this House does not realise that if I argue, as I do, for the preservation of this monument I am not doing so as some antiquarian solely concerned with the national monument. I believe that reason should govern this matter as all matters, but reason here will be failing in its duty if it does not have regard to the passions involved, if it does not have regard to the significance for the present of the preservation of what is valuable in the past; if it does not realise that this community cannot be made to do the work that is its duty to do, that it cannot fully realise its highest potential, if it can be seen anywhere to have faltered in the preservation of such a valuable record of the past of this country and of this city.

Lady Goulding

I am neither an architect nor an archaeologist. As a lay person I feel there are only three ways in which we can deal with this very difficult predicament. One is to forget all about it and build the corporation offices there; the second way is to remove the most precious of the archaeological ships and objects that are there and bring them into our National Museum, perhaps leaving a little bit of the ground free and with a glass-protected place where one could see the remains of the rest of the ships. The third way is somewhat radical inasmuch as for over 50 years we have not built a museum or an art gallery in this country. I am sure we do not have the money, but is it not feasible that we should build a new museum? We are very short of space in this House; we could move the museum from where it is to the new place. The Government could use for offices the Museum adjoining this House, terrace rather beautifully the Wood Quay site and keep our heritage and let the Corporation build their offices outside the city—not too far. Already, we are jammed with traffic. The Corporation have always said that they wished to have offices near to dwelling houses. This would be one of the ways if we could find a proper site. I am not saying in which of the three ways I think it should be done because I am not in a position and have not the knowledge to do so but these are three different possibilities I should like to put before the House.

Mrs. Robinson

The background to the Wood Quay issue has the utmost significance for Ireland today and for this Government. Wood Quay raises four distinct kinds of issues, and in the limited time available to me I would like to mention and deal with these four distinct issues. Wood Quay raises very important cultural issues: it raises institutional and therefore political issues: it raises planning issues of a most fundamental nature and it raises social issues.

Dealing first with the cultural issues, what is Wood Quay? We know that it is the proposed site of the new civic offices, that it has been in the ownership of Dublin Corporation for a very considerable time and that it was discovered to be the site of early Viking Dublin. It was discovered to have untold riches of an archaeological nature, of a historical nature, of a cultural nature, of an architectural nature. It was discovered to be the site of early working-class Dublin where townspeople lived, where they had early earthen fortifications which have revealed an extraordinary complexity of design and a uniqueness in Western Europe.

Just over a year ago, on the last Sunday of November 1977, I was brought into the Wood Quay issue in a very dramatic way and was involved in a long and difficult court case which resulted in a judgment in the High Court in July last by Mr. Justice Hamilton deciding that this site at Wood Quay is a national monument. That judicial finding was made on the basis of expert evidence offered by archaeologists and historians and architects from this country and of archaeologists from Britain and from Denmark. That was the evidence offered in court which Mr. Justice Hamilton found coercive. There can be no doubt that Wood Quay has an extraordinary cultural richness for us and one of the great advantages of being involved as a lawyer in that case was the privilege of visiting the site on a number of occasions. I think I should speak a little about this. It is stunning to be able to walk along a Viking streetplan and see the wattle houses—the actual demarcation of the walls—to see where the hearth is, to see the instruments, ordinary household instruments. It is stunning to stand beside the archaeologists on the site as they describe the intricacy of the post and wattle work, as they show the design of the earthen fortifications and to learn that there is no counterpart in Western Europe and to hear this from Danish archaeologists, from German archaeologists, from those who regard this not as an Irish cultural treasure but as a European cultural treasure. We have to face this fully— there is no doubt about the European and indeed international significance of the site at Wood Quay. As a people who gained their independence comparatively recently, who are now in charge of our own country, the buck stops with us and as far as Wood Quay is concerned the buck at the moment stops with the Government.

Wood Quay also raises very important institutional and political issues because, as Senator FitzGerald has reminded us, despite the fact that Wood Quay has been determined in the High Court to be a national monument and despite the fact that the evidence of that was found to be coercive, there is provision in our national monuments code for the destruction of a national monument and this can be done in the case of a national monument which is in the possession of a local authority by the joint consent of that local authority and the Commissioners for Public Works. The Commissioners for Public Works act in this matter clearly on the advice if not under the thumb of the Government. They do not appear to have an independent function in the matter and this can be understood because of the monetary implications for this country of deciding to treasure a national monument as opposed to authorising its destruction. The Commissioners for Public Works do not appear to act in an independent capacity in relation to the decision and for that reason I think we have to regard it in reality as a Government decision.

There is provision for the Commissioners of Public Works to receive advice from the National Monuments Advisory Council, a body with a statutory function to advise the Commissioners. That body from the very beginning, certainly at the court proceedings, has consistently advised the Commissioners and therefore indirectly advised the Government—and indeed directly to my knowledge—that the national monument at Wood Quay is of such immense cultural importance to us that it should be preserved and be fully excavated, should not be under threat and should be treasured for the nation. That is the advice of the statutory body established to advise the Commissioners. Since the advice forthcoming is so strongly and unequivocally in favour of the preservation of the national monument at Wood Quay and the decision is being taken not on cultural grounds, not on the grounds of the importance of Wood Quay to us as a nation but on other grounds and for other reasons, this raises an issue of how far the decision can be taken in the way it is being taken by the Commissioners of Public Works on issues which are not related to the national monument itself and to its significance for the people of Ireland.

For that reason I believe one of the lessons we have to learn from the Wood Quay issue is the importance of examining and strengthening our national monuments code so that we do not have the risk to our cultural heritage which is evident in the present circumstances. We also need to ensure that the National Monuments Advisory Council has a stronger and clearer role in relation to the advice it can give and the influence that it can exert. If we are saying that the Commissioners of Public Works are going to be the deciding body, there should be more evidence of the independence of their decision and of the separation of their function from the direct controlling voice of the Government. These issues are not clear at the moment.

The third set of issues which are central to Wood Quay are the planning issues. These were highlighted very strongly in the Labour Party's statement on Wood Quay. At the time the statement was published certain people said that in some way it was a compromise on the basics. I believe that if this statement is understood it is the strongest and most rounded contribution that has been made on the issue of Wood Quay and I am glad that the Labour Party was prepared to take the time to examine the issue and to come to the agreement.

The statement has four major considerations: first of all, that the national monument at Wood Quay must be conserved, and the word "conserved" was chosen deliberately because conserved means that the parts that can be preserved should be preserved so that the parts that are not capable of being preserved should be kept in the context of either being displayed on the site or reconstituted, as we have reconstituted so many other vital national monuments, like, for example, the Hill of Hostages in Tara. People who go to Tara—probably the most basic national monument of our instinctive culture as a people—and look at the mound of hostages and walk around it—are very moved by it. That was entirely reconstituted by the late Professor Ruairí de Valera in his capacity as a distinguished archaeologist. Therefore, we should be prepared to reconstitute these earthern banks, the subject of the present controversy on the Wood Quay site. What is happening is a despicable attempt to put pressure on the archaeologists on the site to speed up their work at excavating these earthen works so that there may be nothing there, so that the corporation and the Government may, in an underhand way, be able to say: "Well, there is nothing left to preserve, so there is no decision necessary in regard to preservation."

I believe these earthen fortifications are of immense significance in understanding the evolution of Dublin itself, that we do not know nearly enough about the complex structure of them and that when there has been further time for continued excavation they should be reconstituted as a unique structure in western Europe, as uniquely poised on the bend of the river there, and as part of the national monument of Wood Quay.

We are talking about an area of south inner Dublin which is vital to the texture of the city itself. We must be concerned not only with preserving the national monument of Wood Quay but also with revitalising that Liberty of Wood Quay, as it was christened during that march of thousands of people expressing not only the archaeological and aesthetic values but also the social values of the desire for a living city, the desire to have a revitalising of housing and of the facility of a monument on or adjacent to the Wood Quay site which would allow for display of the very valuable materials which have been found and many of which are in the National Museum. It is very important not to narrow the subject of Wood Quay. We are talking about the revitalisation of the south inner city. We are talking about people living there. We are talking about the need for a community to have a life, and a community involvement in that area.

The Labour Party statement then deals with the other issue, the question of the civic offices. Here I must comment on the terms of the motion. The motion before us today reads:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to make an order to preserve indefinitely the Viking site at Wood Quay, already designated a National Monument, in view of the many other sites in Dublin available for civic offices.

In the best of all possible worlds and indeed, if possible at all, I—and I know that many people in the Labour Party—would like to see the civic offices built on an alternative site. We explored every possibility of that. We tried, in consultation with the city manager, we tried looking ourselves at alternatives; we tried by examining the city. Deputy Ruairí Quinn, our spokesman on the Environment, did a great deal of work trying to see what were the alternative sites. It is not easy to see a total alternative site. I believe we came up with a very constructive solution, that is, that there would be on the part of that area—and we must distinguish this—which at one time did have very valuable archaeological material, which was at one time a site that could be designated a national monument but which was excavated to bedrock so that there is now nothing there, and that is more than half the site, could be the site of a scaled-down civic office. It could be scaled-down so as to respect and be much more in tune with the profile up to Christchurch, much more in tune with the profile along the river, which is a profile of low buildings. The scaling down of the civic offices would have other values. It would mean the devolution to other parts of the city of some of the amenities which do not have to be centralised there right in the middle of the city forcing people who want to use the offices to travel large distances. We must have some centralisation; it should be scaled down; it should be compatible with that enormously beautiful visual impact of Christchurch from across the river.

Therefore, there are four different strands to this. The first is no compromise at all on preserving the national monument at Wood Quay, the possibility of having a very exciting museum of Dublin adjacent to it so that you can look at this Viking street, so that you can look at the earthen fortifications there on the ground. You would have the museum to display the treasures which have been found on the site, the scaled-down civic offices being a public function and an amenity in that area, a very important amenity for a city; also housing in that area and a plan for the other ports of medieval Dublin which have been so well displayed in the map produced by the Friends of Medieval Dublin.

In my last half minute I might pay enormous tribute to Father F.X. Martin and to the Friends of Medieval Dublin who have fought such a consistent, brave and valiant battle, and who may have to go on fighting that battle in order to preserve our national heritage. They are right and we in this House should recognise it. We should join with them in fighting to save this immensely important part of our cultural heritage and of the social, living Dublin for which we must fight.

Mr. Lambert

I speak with the background of a Dublin family of at least four generations. Throughout my life one of my dreams has been the landscaping of the area between the Liffey and Christchurch Cathedral, to provide a vista of historical elegance. For years I have patiently watched the growth of the dilapidated houses along the Liffey and emotionally suffered this ugliness in the belief that there was a worth-while purpose ahead and that ultimate clearance would give way to one of the finest sights in Europe. I thought corporation members were thinking along the same line. I live in Rathfarnham and, in order to reach Dublin airport, I have to drive across Dublin reluctantly adding to the traffic chaos which chokes and pollutes the city centre. It takes longer and longer to get to the airport with more and more waste of time, petrol and patience. As one becomes captive in the congestion the follies of our cityscape impinge on one's consciousness.

I make a plea that there will not be another folly added to some there already. I inevitably choose the route via Christchurch Cathedral because of the pleasurable feeling of driving up by St. Patrick's particularly since the corporation wisely made the clearance for the spanning out of roads which elevates one's spirit and makes one proud of the city of Dublin. I had this vision of the vista long before I knew anything about the Viking discoveries. Of course, this adds a new national dimension, as has been said by many Senators. I want to add my plea, on behalf of future generations, to re-design the whole site in order to provide this glorious perspective from the Liffey which will so enhance the character of our capital city.

Today we should be mindful of the generous gesture of the Archbishop of Dublin in foregoing the plan for a cathedral in Merrion Square. Archbishop Ryan has shown that pride need not stand in the way of changing one's mind. Those Senators who joined Senator Goulding's track around the square will have got a new sensitivity to the glories of our city. Those who destroy the soul of a city destroy the soul of some of its citizens and the intrusion of the type of office blocks which are planned will be monuments to the cultural ignorance of this generation.

Dr. West

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lambert

The proposed decision to go ahead with the original office block design on this site indicates the very low standard of visual taste in this country. The reasons for this lack of visual appreciation are difficult to understand when one thinks of the incredible beauty of our island related to the national affinity for the other art forms in drama, literature and music. No one can dispute the beauty of Christchurch Cathedral where many ecumenical services, including that for Citizenship Sunday, have taken place. I would like to see it become the first European church in a very wide sense. Only yesterday in Merrion Square the Presbyterians, the Church of Ireland and the Irish Methodists were meeting to continue a tripartite consulation to formulate proposals for the organic union of these three Churches. I would hope that the broader use of Christchurch could be a starting point in the unification of the Protestant Churches and an example to Europe as one positive step towards ecumenism. Let us show our fellow Irishmen in Northern Ireland that we treasure all the historical influences which have made Dublin a truly capital city. We owe it to all our citizens in this island. Indeed, we owe it to Europe, as other Senators have said. We have to preserve all the contributory elements which make Wood Quay such a unique site—the cathedral, the national monument and the potential vista from Anna Livia. I sympathise with the staff who need improved office facilities but there are still a number of speculative buildings available for the short term. After all, three to five years for an alternative site is short in the time scale of eternity.

All parties should ask their corporation members to review the visual potential of this whole perspective and encourage their members to work towards and vote for redesign of the whole area for posterity and not just for expediency.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Wyse)

I welcome this opportunity to make a statement on the whole position regarding Wood Quay. Unfortunately, certain information is being sent out to the public and causing quite a lot of confusion in people's minds. I hope today to give some information to everybody from the very beginning of the whole matter. I want everyone to keep in mind that—what I say I hope will be of help to other Senators who wish to make a contribution—what I am giving are the facts. We have read articles, we have read letters to the editor and so on, but everybody seems to be misinterpreting what everyone else is saying. I decided, therefore, that in agreeing to take this motion here, I would prepare something giving the history of this whole complex problem of Wood Quay. What I state are facts and dates. I hope that Senators who will make a contribution after me will keep those facts in mind. The extraordinary thing about what Senator Martin was saying last evening is that it was something that was being done; they were part of the plans he was talking about. I want Senators also to keep in mind that excavation has been going on for the past 11 years—not since I or anybody else in recent years came into office.

I hope to distinguish between some things that are being confused by everybody—excavation and preservation. I speak with all honesty when I say I am somewhat disappointed with professional people in the field of archaeology who have not come forward and explained this very important matter to the people of Dublin. I say—because everyone seems to be becoming emotional about the whole matter—that I do not blame this or that. It is an emotional problem. But I stand holding responsibility for the site. I am not allowed the luxury of becoming emotional in this matter.

I was impressed with a lot of what Senator Robinson said but I am glad she mentioned the court order. To clarify the court order I will make a statement, first of all, on this very important point of Wood Quay and the court order issued. Nobody would deny nor would I wish to do so the importance of the High Court decision in respect of Wood Quay. That was the first occasion, of which I am aware, on which a declaration was sought, through our courts, on the initiative of private citizens, that a certain structure or structures continue a national monument as defined in the National Monuments Act of 1930. The unprecedented nature of this action and the decision which emanated tended to cloud certain factors bearing on the judgment which must be placed on record at the outset. In delivering his judgment on Friday, 30 June 1978 Mr. Justice Hamilton said:

I could not but have been impressed by the evidence with regard to the efforts by Dublin Corporation and its officials to reconcile the conflicting interests with which they were faced with regard to the development of this site. It is quite clear that they were under considerable pressure because of the demands, and the justifiable demands, for the erection of civic offices for the staff. It is also quite clear that they had regard to the importance of this site from its cultural, historical, archaeological, traditional and artistic interests, having spent considerable sums on the acquisition of the site, they made the site available for the National Museum for excavation and examination so that this part of our heritage should not be completely lost. I think they were placed in an impossible position in attempting to reconcile these conflicting interests and that they have acted responsibly throughout. This is a view I think not only shared by me but by all the witnesses in this case and I think it is only right that, at the beginning and independent of this judgment, I express this view.

People should keep that statement by the judge concerned in their minds. I would ask this House and all who have interested themselves in the case to bear the judge's remarks in mind and weigh them against the bitter criticism which has been levelled at Dublin Corporation from many quarters and from some of whom we had a right to expect a fairer and more balanced assessment of this very complex case. As to the judgment itself, having carefully considered the evidence, Mr. Justice Hamilton said that he was satisfied that the area between the City Wall, Fishamble Street, John's Lane and Winetavern Street was a national monument within the definition of the National Monuments Act, 1930. He went on to state:

In so saying I am not expressing any view one way or the other whether other interests, commercial or economic may not require this site. In my opinion it is not a matter for this court to express any view one way or the other on this matter. This is a responsibility which has been placed on the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland by the National Monuments Act of 1930.

The judge was referring to section 14 of the Act under which the commissioners may, in certain circumstances, consent to the removal of or interference with a national monument. In the case of a national monument owned by a local authority—this was mentioned by Senator Robinson this morning—as, in this case, the consent must be joint consent in writing of the Commissioners and the local authority concerned. Many people may have thought and indeed some may still think that once the court has declared the site to be a national monument that is the end of the matter. There is quite a lot of confusion on this point. I hope this morning to broaden this matter so that people will get a clearer picture.

If the Oireachtas had intended that the courts should have the final say, the Act would have been framed accordingly. But the Houses of the Oireachtas in enacting this legislation clearly recognised that there could be other considerations apart from historical, archaeological, and so on, in the importance of a monument which might require, in the national interest, that a monument should not be preserved and they made provisions accordingly in this Act. I hope that clarifies the whole position regarding the court proceedings at the time.

I should also say here that the judge concerned never mentioned preservation. He has been misquoted in the press on a number of occasions about this particular point. The records of the court proceedings are there for everyone to examine. I will be very careful in saying—lest I confuse the whole issue again—at no time did the judge mention the word "preservation".

Following the decision of the High Court, the Dublin City Manager asked the Commissioners to join, with the corporation, in consenting to the removal of the national monument to enable the corporation to proceed with their contract for the erection of civic offices. The Commissioners had to decide whether there were good and sufficient reasons to accede to this request and, if so, subject to what conditions, if any. In other words, the Commissioners had to review all the other factors or considerations which had a bearing on the case but which Mr. Justice Hamilton had ruled were outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Let us talk about the factors involved and which we, as Commissioners, had to take into consideration. There are four major factors to be considered by the Commissioners in their approach to this issue. I hope that everyone will appreciate our position, the position of the corporation and everyone involved, but most certainly where my Department are concerned. First, there is the urgent need for offices for the staff of Dublin Corporation who are at present widely dispersed in substandard accommodation throughout the city; secondly, there is the money which has already been invested by the corporation in the proposed building scheme for Wood Quay; thirdly, there is the problem of deciding what exactly do people want preserved at Wood Quay and how can this be done? Lastly, what portion of the site has been completely excavated? Would a court hold that it still constituted part of a national monument? Everyone should bear in mind that excavation has been going on for a long number of years. I hope that everybody who speaks here this morning will have visited the site, which might help when discussing it and when a final decision will have to be made.

Let me first deal with the need for new offices and review the efforts which Dublin Corporation have made over a long period to meet this need. I hope what I say will enlighten Senator Martin further on the question of sites. The necessity to provide centralised offices for their staff first became apparent to Dublin Corporation in or around the year 1901. Various attempts were made over the following 50 years to provide such offices. In 1951 the corporation set up a special committee to examine the problem. In 1955 this committee, having satisfied itself that central offices were necessary to meet the needs of both the general public and the staff, came to the conclusion that, of the various sites they had investigated, the site at Wood Quay—which we are at present discussing—was the only one that satisfied all the requirements. The committee's report was adopted by the corporation who then took steps to acquire the site.

Last evening somebody seemed to misinterpret the position, that the corporation had just picked Wood Quay site and that was that. That is totally wrong. I hope later in my speech to give further information about this. This is on record for anybody who wants to see it. That committee searched Dublin for a convenient site for the building and let no one say otherwise, as I think was stated here last evening. The site was acquired on a compulsory purchase order which was the subject of a public inquiry at which persons objecting to the proposals were offered an opportunity to make their views known. It is worth noting that no objections on archaeological grounds were received to the making of the order.

Mrs. Robinson

For the obvious reason that nobody knew at that time that there was a national monument there.

Mr. Wyse

I am not a Dubliner but if I was I am sure I would have known.

Mrs. Robinson

Not at that time.

Mr. Wyse

Senator Robinson, I did not interrupt anybody here. I was urged on a number of occasions to interrupt people but it is not my form to do so. I would expect that the same courtesy would be extended to me this morning.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister to continue without interruption.

Mr. Wyse

The acquisition of all the property covered by the order was completed in 1967. A public competition was held in 1967 seeking proposals for the development of the site for offices. In the brief prepared for the competition by the corporation reference was made to the possibility of archaeological finds on this site. The plans and models submitted under the competition were put on public display at the City Hall for a period of six months. The winning entry was selected by the board of assessors, which included experts of international repute, as the most suitable for its treatment of the archaeological, environmental and functional qualities demanded by the project. Certain objections were lodged to the granting of planning permission for the selected scheme. But, after an oral hearing held on 6 May 1971, the then Minister for Local Government granted planning permission for the scheme. In 1973, however, the Department of Local Government intervened and asked Dublin Corporation to review the scheme, as a result of which it was decided to relocate the office blocks on the eastern side of the site so that the view of Christchurch Cathedral would be preserved. It was clear from my investigations into this matter that the fullest publicity was given by Dublin Corporation at all times to the proposal to develop new civic offices on the site. They gave the National Museum every facility to carry out archaeological investigations at the site. It was not until after the museum had vacated the site in 1976 and informed the corporation that they were finished, that the corporation decided to go ahead with the building scheme. This is also on record.

The corporation gave public notice of the invitation of tenders in May 1977 and a contract was placed in October 1977 for the construction of blocks 1 and 2 of what would eventually be a four-block complex. It was after—I must emphasise this—the placing of the contract, in November 1977, to be exact, that the Commissioners of Public Works were approached by Fr. Martin, acting on behalf of the Friends of Medieval Dublin, with a request for the making of a preservation order.

Having regard to these facts any fair-minded person must agree with His Lordship, Mr. Justice Hamilton, that Dublin Corporation had acted most responsibly throughout this whole affair in trying to reconcile the conflicting interests with which they were faced. They were, indeed, placed in an impossible position, as His Lordship said. Since very few people who are now campaigning for the preservation of the site have recognised this, I personally want to pay a very special tribute to the City Manager, to his officials and to the members of the City Council for the cooperation afforded to me and members of my staff during this whole discussion on Wood Quay.

The question then about which many people are talking is that of alternative sites. I would like to talk about that for a little while. The motion before the House calls on the Government to make an order to preserve indefinitely the Viking Site at Wood Quay in view of the many other sites in Dublin available for civic offices. This statement that suitable alternative sites are readily available has been promoted by various people since this controversy developed but no one has yet satisfied me that there is a viable alternative to the Wood Quay site as a means of providing the much needed accommodation for corporation employees within a reasonable time. One suggestion was that the Irish Life Assurance Company would be willing and able to provide accommodation. My information is that Irish Life has no suitable site available for such a scheme and have themselves made no such suggestion. Even if they had, it would take years to plan and contract for the erection of the offices and, of course, the Irish Life Company is no fairy godmother. Their first responsibility is to their own investors. It is the ratepayers and taxpayers who would have to meet the high rents which would inevitably be charged.

A second suggestion was that an approach be made to CIE to rent the offices which they are hoping to build as part of a central transportation complex near the Halfpenny Bridge. Considering that CIE own only a fraction of the site for the proposed complex, and there is no guarantee whatsoever that they will be able to acquire the remainder within a reasonable time, if at all, this suggestion can only be misleading to the general public.

The second factor to which the Commissioners must have regard is the money which Dublin Corporation has already invested in the site. To date, the corporation has invested over £3 million in the site, covering site acquisition, demolition works, site clearance, fees and payments to the building contractor. Abandonment of the project at this stage could involve them in expenditure of over £3 million involving the acquisition of a new site, fees for redesigning the building on the new site and compensation to the contractor in respect of the contract for the Wood Quay site.

Mrs. Robinson

They could recover that money by having it a national monument, and the Hotels Federation established that in their study.

Mr. Wyse

I can assure the Senator I will deal with that too before I finish. Some people may feel that this is a small price to pay for the preservation of a national monument. It is easy to say that a value cannot be put on our cultural heritage but, for better or for worse, a value has to be put on such items from time to time when hard decisions have to be made. Unlike those whose functions it is to tender advice, those of us who are charged with accounting for public funds are constantly faced with responsibility for evaluating the many choices which come before us for financial support. The Commissioners of Public Works have to settle priorities in relation to the preservation and protection of national monuments throughout the country and the costs which would be involved in preserving this one monument at Wood Quay, even allowing this was possible, would be equivalent to three or four times their annual budget for national monuments which is currently around £1 million.

It has been claimed that Wood Quay is unique. Is it? I do not want to be misinterpreted about this but I am trying to place before Senators the position that I am in in making the decision and what I have to take into consideration before a final decision is made on this. Wood Quay is now part of a much wider area which formed the original Viking and later medieval settlement. Are we then to preserve the entire area encompassed by the walls of the old city? Can we stop at the city walls? What about the settlements which grew up outside the walls and which would also qualify as a national monument? What about other Viking settlements around the coast such as Wexford, Waterford, Cork and Limerick? Is Wood Quay to be preserved at the expense of these? These are the hard facts with which I and the Government must gamble in deciding on the issue. That must be kept in mind because it is very important.

Mrs. Robinson

There was evidence on oath that the earthen fortifications are unique at that point. They are not reproduced elsewhere.

Mr. Wyse

I will now deal with the question of preservation versus excavation. Here, again, I will give the facts, the dates, so that if anyone wishes to contradict me later, I will be able to give them the records.

I come now to the vexed question of preservation versus excavation which has been the subject of much debate among archaeologists and the public at large. As I have indicated already, the staff of the National Museum have been carrying out archaeological excavations at Wood Quay and adjoining sites since 1962. But it is only within the past 12 months or so that the idea of preserving any part of the area, apart from the old stone city wall, on a permanent basis has been seriously promoted. That is worth remembering. Since 1962 excavations have gone on and now, at this stage, we are talking about preservation. I will have to deal with that, too, of course. Neither the National Monuments Advisory Council nor any other party requested the Commissioners of Public Works to take such action until 27 November 1977—in other words, after the contract for blocks one and two had been placed—when Fr. Martin wrote to the Commissioners on behalf of the Friends of Medieval Dublin asking them to designate the first Viking fortification, sometimes described as the Viking bank at Wood Quay, as a national monument. On the following day the Honorary Secretary of the National Monuments Advisory Council wrote to the Commissioners stating that the standing committee—and I emphasise the standing committee and not the full council—had decided to recommend to the Commissioners that a temporary preservation order be placed on the area surrounded by the city wall, Fishamble Street and John's Lane. The letter stated that the purpose of such an order would be to enable excavation and examination to continue of the stone city wall of the Viking period, the earthen banks and palisades and the presumed site of St. Olaf's church and to prevent damage occurring to it, or destruction of part of the Viking medieval defences of the town already exposed. On the 27 January——

Mrs. Robinson

That is not correct. That was a minority view.

Acting Chairman (Séamus de Brún)

I must rule that the Minister must be allowed to continue without interruptions, please. That applies to all Senators.

Mrs. Robinson

The Minister is giving the record and he must keep the record straight.

Acting Chairman

The Minister must be allowed to continue, without interruptions.

Mr. Wyse

I did not interrupt Senator Robinson, although I was tempted on many occasions because she was talking about something which was really happening and planned. I am afraid Senator Robinson must not have studied the matter or had any contact with the local authority, or the people responsible. I am afraid the Senator has not. I am not going to make this a political issue. Every effort has been made to bring me into the field of making this a political issue but I have no intention of doing so. I have resisted it so far and I make no comment about the documents issued by the Labour Party and the views that the Senator held before the document was issued. I am not going to get involved in a political field. This is a very serious matter and I am very careful as to what I say or do in this context. The Honorary Secretary again wrote to the Commissioners stating: "The Council consider that further archaeological excavation was needed and recommended that no mechanical excavation or development works take place until the archaeological excavation of the whole of the area referred to as area 2 in the court proceedings and the site of block 2 of the proposed civic offices has been satisfactorily completed". The House will note the strain—until archaeological excavation has been satisfactorily completed. This was my job and this was the advice coming to me. Therefore, I had to ensure that a site would be properly excavated on the advice of people appointed by the National Museum to advise me. At this stage the council were still concerned in the main that archaeological excavation be undertaken before the building of the civic offices proceeded. The council also recommended that the Commissioners have an expert examination conducted as to the feasibility of having the earthen banks preserved in or under buildings planned by the Dublin Corporation. Up to this point the advice of the council was unambiguous. They were pressing for a thorough archaeological investigation of the site and there was the reference to the feasibility of preserving the earthen banks in or under the proposed offices examined. They were not opposing the erection of the civic offices as such.

Following the High Court declaration, however, an element of doubt began to appear in the advice emanating from the National Monuments Council. In a letter dated 18 July 1978 the Honorary Secretary again wrote to the Commissioners at the behest of the Standing Committee recommending (1) that cognisance should be given under section 15 subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the National Monuments Act, 1930, for any actions which would lead to the demolition of any part of the monument or the destruction of archaeological evidence; (2) that there should be a phased archaeological excavation of the site designed to recover the fullest information; and (3) that consideration be given to the permanent conservation of the monument and its environment. These recommendations were reported in a further letter dated the 8 September 1978. Again at the behest of the Standing Committee of the Council. How were the Commissioners to interpret these recommendations? How could they reconcile the apparently conflicting recommendation? If a phased archaeological excavation was to be undertaken, it must be authorised by way of a joint consent under section 14 of the Act. If the monument was to be preserved how could it be simultaneously excavated to recover the fullest information? An attempt has been made in recent days to explain that excavation does not necessarily mean destruction, and cases at Newgrange have been cited.

Mrs. Robinson

And the Hill of Hostages.

Mr. Wyse

Newgrange was mentioned. I would suggest that people who want to know anything about Newgrange would consult with a very eminent person in the field of archaeology, one who has the admiration of his fellow archaeologists in this country, Professor O'Kelly, a person who is responsible for Newgrange, and I would suggest that they discuss Newgrange with him. He will be only to delighted to give all the information that is now being sought by people.

What exactly are we being asked to preserve at Wood Quay? A monument is defined in the National Monuments Act as including any artificial or partly artifical building structure, or erection whether above or below the surface of the ground and whether affixed or not affixed to the ground stone and any cave, or other natural product whether forming part of or attached to the ground which has been artificially carved, sculptured, or worked upon, or which appears to have been purposely put or arranged in position and any prehistoric or ancient tomb, grave or burial deposit. Mr. Justice Hamilton declared a certain area at Wood Quay to be a national monument. What structures were present on the Wood Quay site which qualify it for designation as a national monument? First, there were the old stone city walls. These were very important. This wall is being preserved by the corporation, and provision was made for this in the building plans long before the Friends of Medieval Dublin interested themselves in the site. We must be very fair in this whole matter. Long before anybody intervened, or made suggestions, Dublin Corporation had this very important aspect of the monument in mind and had plans for its preservation.

Let us consider the earthen banks. The Commissioners were advised that it would be extremely difficult, if not altogether impossible, to preserve these in the Wood Quay situation once they had been fully exposed. Even, however, if it were practical to preserve them, how could one recover the fullest information about the construction of a bank without having fully and thoroughly excavated it, and this would inevitably lead to its removal.

Mrs. Robinson

Like the Hill of Tara. The whole of the Hill of Tara is a national monument.

Acting Chairman

May I remind the Senator that the Minister must be allowed to continue?

Mr. Wyse

Large cuttings had been made by the Museum right through these banks in the course of their investigations and no one raised any objection to it. Why did it suddenly become so important to preserve them after the Museum had left the site and the corporation had placed a contract for the civic offices? The remaining structures which have created the most interest were the remains of the post and wattle houses of different periods. The foundations are stratified one above the other and, to get at the lower ones, the upper ones must be completely removed. To talk of preserving these structures and, at the same time, excavating them to acquire the fullest information about them is to my mind a contradiction, if not an impossibility.

Mrs. Robinson

That is not what Ruairí de Valera said in the court case.

Mr. Wyse

I am not an archaeologist and I do not think that many other people who are talking about this now are archaeologists.

Mrs. Robinson

He is the expert.

Mr. Wyse

How can you get information unless you remove one to get to two, two to get to three, three to get to four, and four to get to five, and what have you then? You have rock bottom.

Mrs. Robinson

And you reconstitute it.

Mr. Wyse

Would the Senator consider rock bottom to be a national monument? Furthermore, there would be difficulty in trying to preserve timber structures which began to deteriorate as soon as they were exposed to the air. The preservation of such timbers can, in some instances, be effected in laboratory conditions but, even there it is a time consuming and expensive process. With regard to preservation in situ, however attractive a proposition, the fact is that the museum staff have removed any timbers which they think are worth preserving for such treatment as they can manage to afford.

We are talking here about the timber structures, and anybody who has seen Wood Quay will know what I am talking about. I have information—here, again, from someone who is very eminent in the field of archaeology—that we can remove the timber structures and have them put through chemical processing, a very costly operation, and then, I understand—and I am waiting for confirmation of this—the timber structures could only be preserved for about ten years. Here again, and I can quote the person concerned and anybody in the field of archaeology who wants to contradict this, can take the matter up with Professor O'Kelly who is an eminent archaeologist of international standing——

Mrs. Robinson

He was the minority view.

Mr. Wyse

The Senator can take it up with the gentleman in question. He has lectured and read papers to a number of meetings and conferences abroad attended by the most eminent of European archaeologists. He has explained and defended his findings in relation to Newgrange and many other monuments and has been most successful. Even the members of the National Monuments Advisory Council have the highest regard for his views on these matters.

The first ever destruction of a national monument has been mentioned. What about High Street and the remainder of the Wood Quay site? Many monuments are of national importance because of the knowledge of archaeology which would be expected to be obtained from them by excavation. In such cases the monuments would be destroyed or abandoned following excavation, as was done in High Street, and has already been done on the major part of the Wood Quay site. This is why, no doubt, the Friends of Medieval Dublin did not seek a declaration from the courts that the area of Wood Quay already excavated is a national monument. It no longer is.

Mrs. Robinson

It was not all excavated. It was destroyed.

Mr. Wyse

It had to be by excavation. References have been made to other archaeological sites as an example of what should be done at Wood Quay. Places such as York in England, Aarhus in Denmark, Trondheim in Norway have been mentioned. The fame of York rests mainly on a Gothic cathedral, bigger than any church in Ireland, many miles of city walls and medieval houses which are in continuous use at present. The Viking site in York at Coppergate is a relatively minor feature of the city similar to the site at Wood Quay, which is being excavated by the York Archaeologist Trust to a fixed deadline and will be built on at the end of that time for a shopping centre.

In the case of Aarhus, full excavation of the site was also the policy followed. A model of the site will be exhibited in an on-site museum, as is planned for Wood Quay, except that the museum at Aarhus is much smaller.

I shall avail of this opportunity now because very little publicity has been given to the museum—I think it was Senator Dowling who mentioned it—to say that I have been amazed by the number of people I have met and asked if they had seen Dublin Corporation's plans regarding the building of a museum. I have seen the blueprint and have been very impressed. Framed within that blueprint is a stone city wall preserved, all the information found properly compiled to be shown in the museum for the people of Dublin to come in read and view the artifacts. What more, and I say this without talking about the decision that will eventually be made on this, can one expect from Dublin Corporation?

Mrs. Robinson

The preservation of the stone wall is very crude.

Mr. Wyse

I know it worries the Senator.

Mrs. Robinson

It does.

Mr. Wyse

In fairness, I have to be very fair with everybody and so far I have not condemned anyone's statement. I am just trying to give our side of the matter. I anticipated that certain things would be said and so I tried to prepare myself for them. Criticism of the manner in which excavation has been carried out has received a lot of publicity and I want to clarify the position. There have been calls for sufficient time to allow a long-term, unhurried excavation of the site and it has been suggested that, since the National Museum first commenced their excavation at Wood Quay and adjoining sites, they have been working under the threat of the bulldozers. If this were the case, why did we not hear of it before now? Why is it just being mentioned now?

Mrs. Robinson

Because they are loyal civil servants.

Acting Chairman

Now Senator Robinson was heard without interruption. I would appeal to you again to allow the Minister to make his contribution.

Mr. Wyse

I will comment on this. I had occasion to discuss this point with members of the National Monuments Advisory Council a week ago and this claim was emphatically denied by the former director of the National Museum who was intimately connected with the excavations over a long period. When the museum decided to terminate their investigations in 1976 the corporation offered further time, if they desired it. Does that sound as though the bulldozers were waiting to move in? Why should the members of Dublin Corporation offer further time again to the National Museum for excavation? Surely I have to nail this lie here and now.

I visited that site recently. I saw no bulldozer in there. I discussed the matter with the two people appointed by the National Museum as to how things were going. They were quite satisfied. They were under no pressure from anybody. They were not aware of a final decision to be made. I informed them there and then that if more time was needed that this would be forthcoming, certainly from us and from Dublin Corporation. I have to nail this lie. There is no question whatsoever of a bulldozer on the heels of the people who are excavating the site at Wood Quay. This is utterly wrong, and I want to contradict this now and I fear no contradiction of what I am saying.

Up to the time of the present controversy, the National Museum attracted high praise and commendation from archaeological interests in Ireland and abroad for the fine work they were doing in the Wood Quay area. I have the fullest confidence in the professional competence of the staff who are engaged in the present investigations and in the manner in which they are undertaking their task. As a result of my recent meeting with the National Monuments Advisory Council, I am satisfied that my confidence is shared by members of the council. Many archaeological digs are undertaken but I will not deal with that matter because I do not want to take up much of the House's time.

Another very important point is the extent of the site. Senator Robinson was talking about this this morning. To clear up any doubts about the extent of the area which has been the subject of much controversy I will explain the exact position as of now. First, the area which was declared by Mr. Justice Hamilton to be a national monument covers less than half the site owned by Dublin Corporation at Wood Quay. Second, less than half of the national monument itself is affected by the plans for the civic office. Therefore, the proposed building, that is blocks 1 and 2, would occupy less than one-quarter of the entire Wood Quay site. The remaining half of the monument area would be available either for preservation as it stands, or for excavation and preservation as an archaeological park, if somebody can formulate a viable proposition along these lines which would be acceptable to Dublin Corporation who, I am sure, would be sympathetic to the idea. I hope I have clarified the position. This is very important and has also been misinterpreted.

Dr. West

We could not hear that.

Mr. Wyse

The area which was declared by Mr. Justice Hamilton to be a national monument covers less than half the site owned by Dublin Corporation at Wood Quay. Second, less than half of the national monument is affected by plans for the civic offices. Therefore, the proposed building, that is blocks 1 and 2, would occupy less than one-quarter of the entire Wood Quay site.

Mrs. Robinson

Is it not true that it would involve mechanical excavation and therefore destruction of the earthen works and of the Viking street plan area at Fishamble Street? Is that not the reality of it? Consent has been given to that but it is just postponed.

Mr. Wyse

Has the Senator been at the Wood Quay site?

Mrs. Robinson

I have, many times.

Acting Chairman (Séamus de Brún)

This is a debate and not a question and answer time. The Minister must be allowed to continue.

Mr. Wyse

In regard to the area directly affected by the scheme for the civic offices, the greater portion has already been carefully and scientifically excavated by the staff of the National Museum with due regard for all archaeological factors. As I said in the Dáil last week, and again in the course of a radio interview the following day, I will do my best to ensure that the remainder of the building site is thoroughly and scientifically investigated to the satisfaction of the museum staff who, because of their intimate knowledge of the site, are the best qualified to advise in this matter.

I have invited the National Monuments Advisory Council to meet me on Friday, 8 December 1978 so that I can consult with them and get their further opinions before I make my final recommendations to the Government, which I hope to do in the next week. Whatever decision is made is unlikely to satisfy everybody, but I hope all reasonable minded people will accept it as a fair and sensible solution to a very complex and controversial problem. I have given the House the facts. It is very important, especially for the general public, to know exactly what is being done at Wood Quay. Those who are making up their minds as to what should be done should have a very balanced account of the whole question. I hope that Senators will keep this important fact in mind. I came into the Office of Public Works only one-and-a-half years ago. I had to study the whole position with regard to Wood Quay. I have gone to everyone who would be able to offer me professional advice. I am satisfied with what is going on at Wood Quay at the moment. I have the highest praise for and confidence in the archaeologist, appointed by the National Museum, who is working on the site. I know he will not fail the people of Dublin in providing the necessary artifacts or any information that would be required from him. So once again I say here that I have avoided making this a political issue. I have read statements I could have very easily gone back over and contradicted but I hope that after this three hour debate once and for all both sides of the picture will be given to the people of Dublin, to the Senators and to the Members of the Dáil so that everybody will have a very practical approach to this very complex question.

Professor Murphy

I am sorry that the Minister intervened just before I spoke but much of what he said did throw badly needed light on the situation. I voted last week for Senator Martin's motion that the item be discussed there and then because in my view the sooner it was discussed the better and because in principle I would vote for any move to get Private Motions discussed. Unfortunately I was not able to accede to Senator Martin's request to me earlier on that I put my name to the motion because, as the motion is phrased, I could not accept it on those terms and because I do not see the issue as a clear-cut one, as clear-cut, for example, as the very dramatic kind of alternatives posed to us by Senator Alexis FitzGerald. I must say that Senator Martin put his case very reasonably. It was, as I understood it, an argument for compromise and above all it was marked by a moderate tone which is very badly needed in this discussion. Perhaps the one thing that I disagree with was his suggestion that if the Government take a certain decision then academics are prepared literally to flatten themselves before the bulldozers. If we are to have law and order, then if Governments decide, ultimately citizens must obey, and it does not matter whether the people who will not obey are subversives or academics or whatever. So, that suggestion has undertones of anarchy.

None of us here is an archaeologist. We all speak, as St. Paul says, "as one less wise". My own discipline, however, is closely related to archaeology, and in UCC history and archaeology are cognate departments. We have joint students at postgraduate level and I myself have edited for some 14 years a journal of history and archaeology. I have, then, some considerable contact with archaeologists and I say this not to claim an expertise in this field because modern archaeology is a very arcane discipline indeed, but I mention these facts in order to establish my own good faith and my own concern for our heritage. In this regard I share Senator FitzGerald's and Senator Robinson's concern that our national monuments code be suitably revised. I also want to make it quite clear that those of us who do not see eye to eye with the Wood Quay lobby have no intention of letting ourselves be branded as mindless vandals bent on the destruction of the national heritage. I deprecate the simplistic alignment that we have seen in this discussion, in the correspondence columns of our national newspapers and latterly in the abusive rantings of a prominent political columnist.

The controversy over Wood Quay is not a black and white issue. It is not simply the classic conflict between environment and progress or even the needs of the citizens versus the desirability of preservation, but it is as well a conflict among experts. As the Minister has just now confirmed, the National Monuments Advisory Council is by no means unanimous on Wood Quay. The opinions of various foreign archaeologists have been cited here. I must say, without wishing to sound insular, that I am not impressed all that much by what foreign archaeologists have to say. If our own learned classes cannot decide what is and what is not to be preserved I do not think we should have any great regard for what European experts have to say. We had some evidence in the last couple of days how dearly Europeans love us. It is very easy for foreign archaeologists to tell us to preserve this and to preserve that, since they do not have to worry about our financial problems. They are not concerned with our municipal needs.

As the Minister has said, there is, then, much confusion, much conflict, much ambivalence about what should be preserved and what could be conserved. There is a certain element of vagueness in Senator Martin's motion in this regard. The vagueness stems originally from the High Court judgment which defines an "area" to be a national monument. Much can be said for the view that that judgment if not bad law is certainly bad archaeological sense. It is very difficult to see how an "area" can be a national monument, in contradistinction, say, to a solid entity like the Rock of Cashel, or Newgrange which is in the nature of a single monument. The Wood Quay site is an area of ground within which lie a series of fragmentary pieces of individual structures. Any one of these structures—arguably, all of them collectively—could be national monuments, but if you excavate them, if the archaeology is extracted from them, then how is the area of ground remaining to be regarded as a national monument? It is in this sense that the area was described as "a hole in the ground", a blunt statement, perhaps even an offensive statement of a very forthright man—and a man whom I am very pleased to have as friend and colleague, Professor M.J. O'Kelly of UCC, an archaeologist with a distinguished international reputation and not least, by the way, in Scandinavia, the home of the Vikings. I was very glad to hear the Minister defending and praising Professor O'Kelly.

The conflicting demands of excavation and preservation in situ present an inescapable dilemma. Only the stone wall can be preserved in situ and that has already been agreed upon. The other structures present formidable problems. In regard to the earthen works or mud banks, once you excavate the archaeology in order to find out what is in them and establish their relationship one to the other, then what you are left with is what the archaeologists call “spoil”. Putting them back is nonsense from the archaeological point of view.

What has been done at Newgrange has been cited as a precedent but in fact Newgrange is 95 per cent stone, both tombs and mounds. What was excavated at Newgrange was the collapse of stone from the mound on to the ground and that was put back where it belonged originally. There is no problem there of preservation. What was done in Newgrange or in places like Holy Cross is no guide for low mud banks at Wood Quay. You are going to run into difficulties no matter what you do with these mud banks. If you build over them, they are going to dry up and crumble. If they remain exposed, they will wash away. If they are covered with earth, they become invisible.

The timber structures also present formidable problems about preservation in situ. Timber is there for a thousand years, waterlogged in an environment where there is no air and oxygen and you take it up, you extract the archaeology, and suddenly it is exposed to what is called aerobic environment—exposed to decay in various forms, and what are you going to do about that? You can, it is argued, impregnate the timber with chemicals. Suppose you try to reconstruct timber posts in situ with half of them sticking up from the ground and half of them under ground, you are going to have enormous difficulties—problems of expensive preservative chemicals, apparatus to inject them with—constant skilled supervision, and in the end a life of perhaps five to ten years. As the Minister has said, the same problem arises with stratified layers of material. Which of them do you preserve? You can, of course, preserve timber—sections of timber, examples of timber, in carbo-wax, effectively substituting the wax element for the water element in the timber, but this can only be done in a museum context, so to speak for demonstration purposes. It cannot be done as a form of reconstruction. You can also usefully show cross-sections of timber to illustrate carpentry details and so on—this has been done in the National Museum and in the Cork Museum. Beyond that it is very difficult to see how you can preserve such structures in situ.

The Minister has reminded us that Wood Quay is only part of medieval Dublin. In fact, stretching in both areas—east and west—we have cleared areas where there are no financial commitments already made and where, arguably, you could experiment further at reasonable cost to the taxpayer. I must say, however, I have my doubts about whether archaeological grants are wisely expended on endless experiment, endless repetition. If you dig up 100 bone combs in Viking Dublin, what do you want another 100 for?

The sensible solution will have to be a compromise and I think Senator Martin has seen this already. Of course, preserve sections of timber but beyond that if you really want to explain Wood Quay to the people of Ireland and to the tourist—I do not accept that you can project tourist numbers or revenue—if you want to make it attractive and if you want to make it educational and instructive, then you make large scale models of different dating horizons, using modern materials, using a site museum, photographs, reconstructed drawings and all the rest. There are examples of this all over the Continent: in a place called Biskupin in Poland there were roughly comparable problems of preservation of perishable materials and this is the kind of solution they came up with. It can be far more instructive for your native or your tourist to look at this kind of mixed presentation—the phrase of Senator Martin—rather than gazing vacantly at bits of timber on the ground or in the ground. All this should be compatible with a low scale building on the site which provides visual access to Christchurch. This would mean that £3½ million of ratepayers' money would not be poured down the Liffey. If further money is injected into Wood Quay in terms of archaeological grants, it is going to deprive sites outside Dublin of their proper funding. How much did the rest of the country get last year in comparison with what was expended on Wood Quay? In terms of archaeological objectives, at least as important as Wood Quay is the job of building up for ourselves an archaeological bird's eye view of medieval Ireland, which can only be done by a widespread system of digs all over the country for which money is badly needed.

Finally, I want to conclude by drawing attention to some unpleasant features of this Wood Quay campaign. Of course, one can understand the citizen's disquiet at what has been happening in Dublin over the last five to ten years, the destruction and decay of Dublin. One can understand that the citizen's disquiet has come to focus on Wood Quay, so it is a symbol. It is a ne plus ultra attitude. So you have the march and that type of thing. I would not make too much of the march. Its significance has been exaggerated. On a fine autumn day going on a march is a very pleasant thing to do. One can exaggerate the significance of the seriousness of commitment of marching citizens. If the peace marches had had any permanent significance we would have a very different situation now in Northern Ireland. But where are the peace marches now? Cá bhfuil an sneachta geal a bhí ann aruraidh? Wood Quay has come to symbolise and to focus the discontent of the citizens over what has happened in Dublin, but that is no excuse for the extravagant gestures that preceded the autumn march, the extravagent, if not the hysterical denunciation, of all who question the Wood Quay lobby as vandals and clodhoppers.

The people who are most voluble about Wood Quay are not people who will have to be concerned about going to 29 different offices to pay their rates and so on.

Dr. West

There is none left.

Professor Murphy

I would like to support what has been said about the constructive role of the Dublin Corporation. Indeed, if Dublin Corporation did not have the site in the first place, the significance of Wood Quay would never have come to light. Last but not least I must mention the officials of the National Museum who have been placed in the most invidious position, caught between two fires. Aspersions have been cast on them which have been scandalous. The circumstances in which they found themselves in the last few weeks and months is the last straw for loyal public servants who have worked for far too long in very difficult conditions.

Acting Chairman

Debate must conclude at 12.42. Senator Herbert has only five minutes. Then I must call on Senator West to conclude the debate.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

Is there any possibility of lengthening the time of debate owing to the time the Minister took to give his contribution? I am not saying he took too long, but it has greatly reduced the time available to a number of other Senators.

Dr. West

By a half hour?

Mr. E. Ryan

In view of the fact that the Minister, to our great benefit, did take longer than normal it would be appropriate if we should extend the motion until 1 p.m.

Mr. Herbert

As an elected Senator to this House on the Labour panel I have a responsibility to the people and to my trade union—Irish Local Government and Public Services Union. People who staff local government buildings have the same right and are entitled to the same dignity as is afforded to people in similar private employment who are protected by the Office Premises Act, 1968. Members of the Local Government and Public Services Union naturally feel dissatisfied when they are obliged to work in conditions which are not satisfactory. Those people do their very best in carrying out their duties under very difficult circumstances.

Dublin city is the capital of Ireland, with the largest problems in relation to housing, roads, water and so on. We have seen, over the past number of years, dormitory towns rising up like Tallaght, Clondalkin, Blanchardstown, Donaghmede. People have come in from those areas to make representations. The corporation built offices scattered throughout the length and breadth of this city and were put under extreme hardship in doing so.

There is a necessity for one central municipal building in the city. Cork city took the lead in this. The people of Cork city have profited well by their foresight in having a proper civic building built. It is incumbent on all citizens to abide by the decisions of the lawfully and democratically elected Government. While I accept the right to protest, protestors also have the duty to respect the rights of others.

A fair and reasonable compromise has been reached between Dublin Corporation and all interested parties. It should be understood that Dublin Corporation is paying out £50,000 a week approximately while this is being delayed. In view of the safeguards being undertaken for the site, the building of civic offices should now be proceeded with without any further delay.

Mr. Connaughton

I am the first rural contributor to this debate. One would think that it was a problem confined to academics on one hand or to the people of Dublin on the other. The Minister, for whom I have a certain admiration in a very difficult position, was most unimpressive today in so far as the history relating to Wood Quay is concerned. In my experience of politics, from what I have heard so far, were it not for the High Court decision we would have a different outlook on Wood Quay altogether. Indeed, the mind shudders at what was likely to have happened by now were it not for the much quoted Justice Hamilton. Terrible things could have happened were it not for that High Court decision.

All people would agree that it is a very important link in the history of this nation. The importance of our national heritage is at stake, but it is not alone for the people of Dublin to have a say in what happens. This country is not that big, and a find of this kind in Dublin is of interest to people in the provinces. Up to 12 months ago it could be stated that outside of Dublin there may not have been much interest in Wood Quay, but it became a very lively issue around the country in the past couple of months. Lots of people who have not got an axe to grind with anybody would be very slow to allow a situation to develop where any of the past might be lost.

The Minister has stated that since 1901 Dublin Corporation are in the market for new offices. With the tremendous number of new buildings that have been built in Dublin, particularly in the last 20 years, it is remarkable that an office block capable of housing the officials of Dublin Corporation could not be found. That does not make sense to me. I understand that Wood Quay in itself would be a reasonable place to build an office block, but it cannot be the only site in Dublin, and certainly from the point of view of money one could say that if it had been built 20 years ago, it would not be as costly as today. If somebody does not find a suitable site for it now it will be twice as costly in 10 years time.

The question of who pays is very important. I believe it will become known as the great blunder if it happens that this Viking site is not preserved for all future generations of Irish people to see and so understand the way the country formed over the centuries. I am not sure how the tourist value of the site might be regarded. If it is built up to the type of Wood Quay that I would expect, I would say there would be thousands of people who would want to see it over a certain number of years.

In reference to what Senator Murphy said about the march, one could say it was a nice fine day for marching, but people do not march around Dublin city for no reason. I have no doubt that public opinion was such that they were definitely afraid the bulldozers would come in and would flatten the site and leave us in the position that we would be much worse off from a national heritage point of view. The Minister finds himself in a peculiar position; as he said himself, it is very difficult to please everybody. It is very important to realise that in this type of business once you destroy something you cannot take it back. Buildings can be costly, but they can be built and sites can be found. I am sure we could never say that we had arrived at a situation in Dublin where there are no more building sites for offices.

The Minister should take particular notice of what the ordinary people are beginning to say. Until now academics got involved in this very heated debate and indeed there were occasions when good sense seemed to be out the window. If the argument is that there is no other place in Dublin to build office blocks, I cannot see how that could possibly be correct: I am sure it is not correct; there must be other places where offices can be built.

There is anxiety in the country that a proper decision be taken on this so that future generations of Irish men and women will be given the chance to study and acknowledge our heritage and our beginnings. I hope this or any Government will not become known as the plunderers of our time.

An Cathaoirleach

I would like the Senate to remember that Senator West gets in at 12.45 p.m. to conclude. I would ask the other Senators to be a little brief, because there are a few others who would like to speak on this.

Dr. West

Because of that, I have agreed with the other Senators that I will take only five minutes at the end.

Professor Conroy

I appreciate Senator West's decision. We are all rightly concerned with the preservation of the past. It is something in which we all take pride, and which traditionally—perhaps since we have such a vast heritage from the past—we have taken it a little too much for granted. It is clear, however from today's debate and the Minister's contribution that we are all concerned about this matter. It is a question of reaching a sensible balance in the situation—the needs of our people, balancing the correct cultural need to preserve our traditions and at the same time also the factual position of the living conditions of today, the practical needs and necessities of day-to-day life—where do we strike a balance between these two conflicting needs? Perhaps the controversy about this matter has helped us to realise the diversity and the depths of our cultural heritage. Nearly the whole country could be designated as a national monument, so rich is it in artefacts and treasures from past ages.

It is ironic in a sense that we are concerned today with the role of the Vikings in our past. The word Viking actually means a pirate, and that is the Scandinavian decision on the matter. It is not an Irish corruption of the word. Perhaps no other invader in our history was so destructive.

I am sure my colleagues are familiar with Otway-Ruthven's many works on our medieval past and in particular, her history of medieval Ireland and her view that, on balance, the Vikings were a destructive force. It is ironic that we are today preserving some part of their past.

I appreciated the very detailed and factual account of the situation which the Minister gave of the matter. I would like to join in the tributes to Dublin Corporation. They have been very responsible in this matter, and they have not got half the credit they deserve. Equally, I would like to join with Senator Herbert in regard to the workers who are involved in this and who have been under severe hardship for many years and whose union has always supported activities relating to the preservation of our cultural heritage. The very responsible attitude of the Local Government and Public Services Union has been at times a little overlooked in all this controversy. It is not only a question of the culture people on one side and the bulldozers on the other. This is far too simplistic a view of the matter. We must try to reach a balanced view. I think the Minister is doing this and I am delighted to hear that he is having further consultations. The suggestions that have been put forward to-date, such as this idea for a museum which—again I would agree with the Minister—have not received the attention they should have got. The idea of a museum is a most imaginative and excellent project and should be a great addition to our cultural heritage here in Dublin. There are many other things that I would like to say but I do not want to go beyond my time.

Mr. Kennedy

I appreciate that the Minister has gone to a great deal of trouble in presenting all the facts and figures as he sees them. Despite what he has said and despite what Senator Martin has said, it appears to me to be clear and beyond all doubt that our people for one reason or another—and not only the people of Dublin—believe that Wood Quay should be preserved in the national interest. Therefore, we are talking here about the will of the people. It seems equally clear that some people in Dublin and especially the staff and employees of the Dublin Corporation feel that the time has long since passed for the provision of adequate office accommodation to enable them to carry out properly their duties and functions for the citizens of Dublin. Personally, I fully appreciate and sympathise with the employees' point of view as expressed in a letter from the Local Government and Public Services Union sent to all Senators and TDs. As the mover of this motion said, I think we can have it both ways. There is no conflict in my opinion between these two very desirable objectives. This is a very happy state of affairs and a rather unique situation for the Government and the corporation to find themselves in. Not always can we have it both ways: we cannot go into the EMS and at the same time stay out of it: we cannot have a national agreement and not have a national agreement at the same time. In this case we preserve Wood Quay and we can, I think, find an alternative site for the office premises.

It is not for me, or any Senator, to suggest where the new offices should be built. I do recollect—and perhaps some other Senators might bring this to mind also—that many many years ago when the great mass of the people of Dublin were living in slums, the worst slums on this side of the Suez Canal, a suggestion was made that dwellinghouses should be erected in the Phoenix Park. Nobody would support this suggestion and the people of Dublin were left to live and die in their slums, in their hovels. I am not going into the merits or demerits of that decision at the time and I am certainly not suggesting that the new office complex should be erected in the Phoenix Park, but personally if I had a choice between preserving Wood Quay and putting the new offices in the Phoenix Park, I would opt for the Phoenix Park.

As my time is limited, I will not go on for too long. It seems to me that the real basis of the opposition to this motion is money. Many references have been made to the possible cost—personally, I think it is an over-estimate—of £3½ million for preservation. I would like to remind Senators that in this House yesterday afternoon in the course of ten minutes, without any opposition from any Senator we voted money running into tens of millions of pounds to Aer Lingus and the Industrial Development Authority. There was absolutely no opposition to this, and quite rightly so, although we all still realise that these moneys constitute speculation to a high degree in the sense that we may not get a return from these funds that we expect and hope for. There is a certain amount of risk in that kind of operation.

Finally, I would like to say that I disagree entirely with Senator Murphy. We must rely on Europe and what is being done in Europe and in other countries to guide us to some extent in our deliberations. I am reminded of the fact that after the last war Europe lay in ruins and the plight of the people was desperate, yet nevertheless in most European countries one of the first tasks they tackled, despite the terrible situation that everybody was in, was the preservation and reconstruction of old parts of most cities that had been destroyed, including Prague and Warsaw.

Dr. Whitaker

In relation to Wood Quay I can lay claim to some measure of objectivity. My harrowing experience in relation to the Central Bank building in Dame Street disposes me to sympathy with a public authority urgently in need of new centralised office accommodation and increasingly frustrated by delays, difficulties, controversy and apparently nugatory expenditure. I confess to a very strong feeling of relief that no Viking remains were uncovered in Dame Street or if they were that they were covered up quietly.

I have antipathies as well as sympathies arising out of that experience. One should, however, pay a tribute to the tremendous patience and consideration shown by the corporation over the years. Like most people who have spoken, I am neither an architect nor an archaeologist but I have a layman's interest in archaeology. I was impressed by the evidence given by so many experts at the High Court hearing which resulted in the "national monument" designation. There are many reputable archaeologists and medieval scholars amongst those who are urging preservation or conservation of the site.

My view, carefully expressed, is this: if what we have at Wood Quay is not only of national but international significance, as is claimed, it would do irreparable harm to the Government's and Ireland's reputation if we were to destroy rather than conserve whatever experts consider to be the significant elements at Wood Quay relating to Norse and medieval Dublin. I am not clear as to what exactly these significant elements are. It would have helped if we had had a model or a large photograph during this debate. I have been over the site and have been most courteously conducted around it and I confess that I am disturbed by the information that the Minister gave in his very helpful speech that there would be a need to build on somewhat less than half of what has been designated as a national monument. I confess I would be appalled if that meant that the evidence on the ground there, which is most impressive, of habitation and trade 1,000 years ago were obliterated. While it is important that there should be a museum on the site to house artefacts and models and so on, this may not do what is necessary in the minds of most people to make permanently accessible to the public what is significant there in relation to the past. Much of this is embedded in the ground or consists of earth works. Not being an expert I am confused as to how far it is possible to preserve that sort of remains. I would be happy to accept the advice of a combination of national and external experts on what we should do. At one stage I thought that perhaps one could revise the building plans to build over or partly build over these significant remains but my preference is that some way might be found of moving to a new site. It would greatly add to the beauty as well as interest of Dublin if this slope from the Liffey to Christchurch had more of the aspect of a public park and contained only buildings which housed and exhibited evidence of the long and varied story of the city from the earliest times to our own day.

I made representations privately to the Government in mid-September on these lines. My visit to the site reinforces my interest in conservation. I must say that, while I commend the moderate way in which Senator Martin introduced the motion, I would be entirely out of sympathy with any means of advancing the conservationist view which ran counter to good public order and involved disrespect for the law. I hope that what the Minister said about the Government and the authorities being ready to consider sympathetically means of preserving the significant elements at the site will, in fact, take place, and that the Government, having considered the report of this debate, will be open to reasonable persuasion in the matter.

Mr. Jago

Senator Connaughton said that he was one of the rural speakers speaking on this subject. I cannot say I am rural but, from outside Dublin looking in and listening to what has been said today, it appears that there is a consensus on certain things which are required. Already part of the site has been designated as a national monument. I presume that will be preserved. In an archaeological dig such as this the purpose appears to be to keep digging until you bring all the artefacts out.

I tend to agree with Senator Murphy that there are certain things which you cannot put back no matter how you try. Therefore, the opinion appears to be that there should be a proper museum to house and display all the artefacts that have been taken out, and that there should be proper models of all that cannot be preserved but of which we want to keep a record. What can be preserved, such as stone work, should be preserved. Also, the view of Christchurch Cathedral should be maintained where possible. If those points can be dealt with, then the building of the City Hall in that context should be allowed to go ahead, taking into account the time that the corporation have waited, the necessity for moving quickly and their responsibility to the corporation staff.

Mr. Mulcahy

I shall not delay Senator West more than two minutes. All decisions that have to be taken of this kind come under the influence of certain factors of a particular point in time. There are two factors here: the human values involved and the archaeological values involved. I am not an archaeologist and I do not fully understand archaeology. I just have a feeling for it as any other ordinary, average Irishman and Dubliner would have. The human values have been debated already. There are employees who are miserable all over Dublin working in conditions in which we would prefer them not to be working. They must be put into offices where they can do their jobs effectively. At the same time we want to preserve or conserve the archaeological values. So, we are looking for a compromise.

For me, if the experts and the corporation could prepare and present what is there so that the total impression can be mentally reconstructed with the help of portion of the structures and the artefacts and good models, it would seem to me that the balance of human values and archaeological values would dictate that we should go ahead and build on the site. That is my view. As long as the total impression of what it was can be mentally reconstructed by visitors or Irish people through keeping some portion of the structures and displaying the artefacts in the museum and having good models. I believe that is the best solution.

Dr. West

On both sides of the House there has been a considerable emphasis on and feeling for the conservation of our Viking heritage. This was also expressed by the Minister and it is clear that the corporation officials worry about this. Really, the question is how we can deal with this site—what is going to be done? There is conflict of evidence on how best to preserve the particular artefacts. I would like to see as much as possible preserved in situ. That is my first point.

The second is that one of the crucial points in the Minister for State's speech was that half of the area currently designated a national monument would be built on. That is not acceptable to me. There was a conflict of evidence. The evidence from both sides was presented in a court. Mr. Justice Hamilton, to whom the Minister of State has referred, had to decide on this conflict and he came down by designating the site, which has already been described, as a national monument. He had to take a balanced view. He took that view. There should be no building on the area designated a national monument. I hope that the Minister of State can, in his discussions, put forward this view and see if it can be upheld.

I would go further than this: I would like to see the whole site preserved, more or less as Senator Lambert has outlined. Senator Whitaker also made the point that if there is to be a building it should be a museum and that should be all there would be on the site. That would be my view. I do not think that anything more should be done there. If the decision is otherwise, then no part of the national monument should be built on. Some low-rise building could be done on the north side of the site, that is the northern edge of the site. A low-rise building could be erected there without greatly affecting the vista. It would not be my ideal but some building could be done on the north side. This would mean resiting the present plans and it would mean a redesign. I am not an architectural expert but the present plan appears to me to be hideous. I really think that tower blocks on that site would be a desecration. If there is to be a building, it should be a low-rise, a four-storey or three-storey building on the north side of the site.

Perhaps some compromise could be effected along these lines. But it did worry me very much when the Minister said that half the site which is now designated a national monument should be built on. That should all be preserved and more opinion is needed. There is a conflict of evidence. In John Robb's phrase, there are some problems that are too important to be left to the experts. As both Senator Kennedy and Senator Connaughton, who comes from the rural part of the country said, the people have pointed out that there is a great deal of concern. It would be wrong for the Government to disregard this concern for this national monument. Governments are here to govern but they are to put into pratice the will of the people and I think the will of the people has been expressed very widely and succintly and has come through fairly clearly in this debate. There is real fear that a maximum effort on conservation is not going to be made. The Seanad has given a very broad feeling in favour of conservation. Further compromises are needed. I hope the Minister of State can go further than the position he has outlined in his speech. I thought his speech was very helpful because he gave many details which we may not all have been aware of. But I would feel that the proposal to build on half the site designated a national monument is not an acceptable one to many people. If there is to be a building there, there should be re-siting and re-design. That will cost some money but that is inevitable. Support throughout the House shows that the general feeling is for a move in this direction.

The debate has been a good one because it has given those many views. I hope, when the Government come to make their decision they will take this very broad spectrum of view right across the Seanad into full consideration.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 21.

Tá

• Blennerhassett, John.
• Burke, Liam.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Cooney, Patrick Mark.
• FitzGerald, Alexis.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Howard, Michael.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• Kennedy, Fintan.
• Kilbride, Thomas.
• Lambert, C. Gordon.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• Markey, Bernard.
• Martin, Thomas Augustine.
• Molony, David.
• O'Brien, Andy.
• Reynolds, Patrick Joseph.
• Staunton, Myles.
• West, Timothy Trevor.
• Whitaker, Thomas Kenneth.

Níl

• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Cassidy, Eileen.
• Conroy, Richard.
• de Brún, Séamus.
• Dowling, Joseph.
• Ellis, John.
• Goulding, Lady.
• Harney, Mary.
• Herbert, Anthony.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jago, R. Valentine.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• Mulcahy, Noel William.
• Murphy, John A.
• O'Toole, Martin J.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, William.

Tellers: Tá: Senators Martin and Hussey; Níl: Senators W. Ryan and Hyland.

Motion declared lost.

Business suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.