May I say that the speech of a Senator proposing a motion shall not exceed 30 minutes, and the Senator proposing, or such other Senator who has not already spoken as he may authorise in that behalf, shall be entitled to not more than 15 minutes for a speech in reply; the speech of any other Senator in the course of the debate shall not exceed 15 minutes?
Wood Quay Site: Motion.
Fifteen minutes? I thought it was 20.
This was a resolution passed by the House on 7 December 1977. Proposing a motion shall not exceed 30 minutes. The Senator proposing or such other Senator who has not already spoken as he may authorise in that behalf, shall be entitled to not more than 15 minutes. The speech, therefore, of any other Senator in the course of the debate shall not exceed 15 minutes.
I move:
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.
This issue has been hanging over Dublin for many years now and I hope that I will be forgiven if I refer to the fact that four years ago on the 10 April 1974 I raised this issue on the Adjournment Debate in the Seanad during the life of the Coalition Government. On that occasion I raised a number of the issues I wish to raise again tonight because most of those issues have now achieved an even sharper and more dramatic focus than it was possible to attribute to them then.
The manner in which the motion is framed is important. We decided not to make it just a vague motion but to concentrate on one aspect which has bedevilled our entire deliberations on the subject. We decided to concentrate on the fact that civic offices can be built anywhere in the city which is free and appropriate. In the four years that have since passed more and more valuable artefacts and discoveries have come to light on the site but, during that period, despite a series of temporary preservation orders, I have seen no sign at all from the corporation, or from either of the Governments, of any search for an alternative site to the site on Wood Quay. That is a very serious matter. We have not even the slightest evidence that any research has been done into finding an alternative site.
When I raised the matter back in April 1974, for instance, the cattle market site was vacant. It was then the most grievous eyesore on the north side of the city. At that time there was a great deal of talk about the development of the north side of the city which, I think, everybody agrees has been severely neglected. That site has very many things to recommend it. The very environment of the North Circular Road beside the Phoenix Park, that whole area was admirably suited and it could not be objected to by the Corporation employees because there were all kinds of advantages, as Shakespeare put it, "to walk abroad and recreate themselves" at lunchtime—much better than anything down along Wood Quay and the increasingly polluted air of the centre of the city. It also had the advantage of being easy of access. One of the implications of the siting of the civic offices at Wood Quay, and it is only one of the implications, is that people who want to drive in and get their tax discs, or whichever registration documents they need, are going to have to drive right through peak city traffic. The old place in Coleraine Street was bad enough but Wood Quay would be absurd. One could, of course, do it by post, but it seems motorists prefer to go in personally and in their cars. An obvious answer to that is that civic offices are not necessarily happily centred just in one area. Several of the functions of the corporation offices, or civic offices, are quite diverse. They are not interdependent and they could be skilfully sited around the city. In fact, siting them around the city could lead to rescuing from the wilderness many areas which have now become gapped and mutilated by random development. It is impossible to drive through Mountjoy Square without weeping nowadays. Could not the facades there be restored? Could not some civic offices be located there instead of four massive monoliths where already you have single line traffic along the Liffey and instead of having these monoliths so situated as to block out a great deal of one of the most beautiful and prestigious cultural possessions we have in Dublin—that is, Christchurch standing there magnificently on the hill? Instead of having these offices sited there, would it not have been better to have spent some of the time of the four years that have intervened looking elsewhere for a site? I want to stress that because it is the nub of the question. What happened was that the Corporation held out firmly. I was going to say stubbornly, but I do not wish either to attribute goodwill or strike an acrimonious note; they are doing what they think is right just as, I presume, the Commissioners think what they were doing is right, the museum think what they were doing is right, the Minister thinks that what he is doing is right. I am not trying to ascribe bad faith to anybody in the matter. But one of the things that they have been doing is simply waiting, waiting with the inevitability of bureaucratic power knowing that one of these days they are going to build there and there is no point in anybody thinking that they are going to do anything else. I find that deplorable. Even if one had some signs of research for an alternative site one would be a little consoled. I want to quote from the Minister for Local Government in that speech when he replied to me. He replied with some acerbity to me. I did not mind that.
The Senator deserved it.
Perhaps I deserved it, but I am still unrepentant. At column 961 of Volume 77 of the Seanad Reports he ended by saying:
"I should say, Sir, that while I would myself have preferred if the offices were sited elsewhere, nevertheless, I am a democrat and the unanimous democratic view of the Commissioners in Dublin is that the revised development should take place. Although I agree that eminent people have claimed that there are priceless finds still on that site other eminent people have said that that is not so. I am not competent to say which view is correct but I gave permission to Dublin Corporation to build their offices after the frustrating experience which they have had. I would be happy if we had built elsewhere but the decision has been made. While I agree it is important that people should be on the alert to see that more of Dublin's past is not destroyed, but the time for people to come forward is when it is threatened, not when final decisions have been taken."
That reads interestingly in the perspective of history. There are several emphases which are very interesting First of all, he is saying that some people thought four years ago that there were no other valuable artifacts to be found there. Subsequent excavation has made savage fun of that prediction. Anybody who said that then is certainly rebuked by some of the priceless finds that have been made there, not just the artifacts but the uncovering of a priest, the uncovering of houses, all the wattle and walls, the uncovering of the old city wall which is still there, and still rather threatened—that is the wall in stone—the discovery of boats, coins, skeletons, weapons, adornments, implements, factories, comb factories, all the kinds of things that show what an extraordinary centre of European commerce and culture Dublin was in those days.
So strenuous has been the excavation, and here one has to praise the work of the archeologist of the museum, and so impressive the findings, that no less a person than A.R. Duffty, the President of the Society of Antiquaries of London, had this to say as recently as the 16 November 1978:
We are convinced that the importance of this site is sufficient to justify every effort that can be made to ensure that it is investigated as completely as possible and, if at all possible, preserved for posterity. We are the more deeply concerned about it because the significance of the find altogether transcends national boundaries so that the site may truly be claimed as the key one for the history of Western Europe as a whole. The loss of evidence resulting from premature redevelopment of the site would be a cultural disaster of major proportions and the cause for widespread and lasting regrets and bitterness for which those responsible would incur censure from many quarters.
I just chose that one. There are several eminent people who uphold that view. What is under threat is uniquely valuable.
Having said that, I want to admit that there is need for offices. I want to admit also that one of the most distressing features is the fact that there seems to be no movement on either side. Even though that area of the site between Fishamble Street and Christchurch has been designated a national monument the only concession to that is that, as a national monument in so far as there can be recovery excavation from it, ultimately it is to be built on. I am not sure that the whole four acre site in Wood Quay should be preserved as an archaeological site. I have no dogmatic or inflexible views of that kind. I would find it acceptable, if it were put forward, that perhaps in that area of the site which is along the Liffey, and away from the place of prime importance between Fishamble Street and the cathedral, low, maybe three-storey houses were put up, or even offices. If some of the civic offices were sited there, we would have grounds for relaxing the tensions which have surrounded the entire operation.
The saddest thing I see about it is that there seems to be no sign of a compromise. The buildings have been moved around a little bit on the plans but, apart from that, it looks as if these monoliths are going to be planted. It looks as if the Friends of Medieval Dublin, who have extraordinary following and immense influence and who are tremendously dedicated to their task, may end up in a confrontation of academics, students, citizens of Dublin, citizens of the area and the bulldozers.
One of the most unseemly confrontations imaginable in a city's culture could take place there. I am pleading with the Minister of State, his office and the Corporation for some attempt to be made to break the deadlock. What would be the ideal situation? What are the things that are precious there? Any citizen of Dublin, any Member of this House, would say that while the site is there unexcavated it must, of course, be fully investigated. Even the Corporation would agree with that. That having been done what do you do with the wall, with the embankments, with these wattle barriers and screens which are to be seen with such symmetry at the moment? Nobody really would want to destroy that either. On the other hand, can you have a compromise? People would like to get a view of the city as well. The desirable thing is to get the artefacts, the really important ones, out. Secondly preserve the unique contours of the streets as they are as far as is possible to do it. Also do not let slip the unique chance of having that marvellous view of Christchurch and, finally, build on part of the site because it is perfectly acceptable that that can be done.
If discussions could begin to take place along those lines it is perfectly possible that many of these civic offices could be sited elsewhere. That is what I am urging on the Seanad today, a suggestion that premature action here will do irreparable and absolutely final damage. An aspect of the damage is of course very marked. It is just not the visual site. It is not just the immense historical importance. It is not just the artifacts. There is an environmental absurdity in siting offices which are going to be inhabited by 3,000 motorised public servants in one place in the city. The pollution in that area of the city will be disastrous and monstrous. It was understandable 25 years ago, when this plan was first mooted, why then it could be seen to be a useful and valuable plan. In the 25 years that have passed since the decision to design civic offices for Wood Quay many things have happened, not just the discovery of the cradle of the city but the discovery that developments in the centre of the city are turning it into a wasteland, the discovery that at night, because people are no longer living there, it is a haunt of all kinds of cutthroat vandals and juvenile terrorists.
One of the greatest problems facing a city nowadays is pollution from cars, the one kind of pollution that is the hardest to deal with, the invisible pollution of the air which affects buildings and every aspect of our lives. These arguments are sensible arguments. I do not think this is an academic argument. Is it too late to think again? Deputy Tully's last remark was: "The time for people to come forward is when it is threatened, not when final decisions have been taken". If the correct decision had been taken four years ago, the civic offices would have been built now, and would have been built elsewhere.
That site could become quite remarkable in Europe. It could be laid out in a manner that could be immensely attractive. The old stone wall is there and could be preserved. A museum could be provided for the artifacts. The argument will be put forward that most of this building is in wattle and in mud. "You are really talking about impressions in mud", some people say, and others have described it as a hole in the ground. The biggest enemy we have here is the tension of those bulldozers looming over us. The excavation is being carried out in a sense of desperate rescue. There should be a preservation order made on it until everything is investigated. It has been said that, in our weather, if you expose wattle and mud and timber beams they will disintegrate. That is not true. They can be impregnated with plastic. There are all kinds of ways to do this. This is the time to turn to the chemist and say, "Show us how this can be done". Let us have the time to look at it to see what can be done with it. We have the exemplary situation in Copenhagen where they discovered a famous ship which was underneath the sea. It was a unique medieval ship. It was in a perfect state of preservation but they realised that if they pulled it up and exposed it to the air it would crumple. So they slowly raised it, bit by bit, and put it in a tank. It is engaged in about a 20 years decompression process until, eventually, it will, by a miracle of modern science, be able to stand up to the air. All kinds of things can be done with these Viking buildings. The time to investigate and work at them, the leisure at which scholars and scientists investigate them, is completely at hazard because of the hand to mouth temporary preservation orders that have been placed on the site since 1973.
It is a national monument. If it is attacked it will be the first time in history that a national monument has been destroyed. The trouble about the entire site is that all the archaeological excavations that have been carried on there since 1969 have been rescue operations conducted in emergency conditions. A lot of this is admirable and very well done. The museum has done its job extremely well.
It is imperative that we should take a look at the whole archaeological implication and potential of the site. Everything from now on should be looked at in terms of a long term programme with plans and detailed research and proper consultation with experts. If these investigations are carried on in that way it will not be something that will just be interesting for scholars, it will be something that can be exposed to the view of the citizenry. In many other cities over ten years you can see archaeological excavations as they proceed. People may go to view them. You have a public manifestation of research scholarship and archaeological insight going on as a continuing operation in front of the eyes of children, adults, visitors and natives. All of the significant structures have to be preserved, if possible in situ. There is not time to do this properly and the haste which has surrounded the full operation has been disastrous so far.
Consideration should now be given to the form which the permanent exhibition demanded by the importance of the site, would take for the cultural enrichment of the Irish people and for all visitors to the site. Some kind of mixed presentation of significant features on the whole site, in a series of pavilions or open spaces against the background of continuing excavation is highly desirable. There could be an archaeological park on the lines of a botanical garden. Some of it can be preserved in the open air. Some of it has to be preserved in glass cases indoors in museum conditions.
If the long-term plan is evolved, if instead of just another temporary stay of execution or a decision to go in and build now, the interested parties could talk sensibly to each other and not in the manner of confrontation which has bedevilled the entire enterprise since it began, there is still time to do an immense amount of good. That immense amount of good involves, first, the most obvious thing that everyone dearly wishes for, the view of the cathedral; secondly, an attractive park sweeping down to the edge of the Liffey; an attractive layout of buildings with a proper sense of proportion of building to building, building to square, something appropriate to the environment and the buildings in that old part of the city; an open park where continuing excavation can go on; an indoor pavilion or museum in which the artifacts can be exhibited; a series of carefully laid out walks and tours which will unite that part of the city with St. Patrick's and Trinity College—that whole cathedral area which could be an incomparable tourist attraction; a reprieve for that part of the city from a monstrous invasion by motor cars and a geometrically increasing pollution hazard. These are all at stake and they are very big issues. Above all, one has to see this in terms of the city itself which used to be such a beautiful city, a seventh city of Christendom, and which, every year, is becoming more and more disgraced, multilated and more and more the prey to greed through ignorance or bad sense and above all, hand to mouth planning. It is a total shame to our sense of our environment of the future and what we wish for our children.
That great march on Wood Quay of 20,000 people was a very important demonstration and one which the Government would be very foolish to ignore. A lot of them were not academic or scholars but ordinary Dublin people who love their city. A lot of them had very ordinary Dublin accents. It marked the first real coming to consciousness of the citizens of the country to the importance of environmental things. Things come slowly in the growth of the community consciousness. You cannot expect people in the hungry forties, for instance, to have worried much about matters of this kind. The generation that is growing up now think very deeply about matters of this kind. Unless we want our children to think very ill of us, we should pause at this because this is really come-uppance. If Wood Quay goes it will be a very symbolic destruction. I would hate to be the Minister of State responsible for it. I am not blaming the Minister of State—these are Cabinet decisions and are obviously communally taken decisions. There is joint responsibility. I deplore the great deal of personal abuse that has been hurled. I hope none of that personal abuse will surface in this House during this debate.
I would appeal in the strongest way to the Government to think very deeply before anything irrevocable is done with that Viking site.
I am very honoured to second this motion. Senator Martin covered a great deal so I will be very brief. Just because the whole business of Wood Quay has become a cause celebré it should not be allowed to be made into any kind of a political football or made into a matter of somebody's pride or bad feeling or the subject of some kind of gamesmanship. It is far too important for that. The organisers of that march of 20,000 people on Saturday, 23 September, have no vested interest in Wood Quay except in the preservation of what they see as an extremely important part of Dublin. As Senator Martin has mentioned, it represents an extraordinary illumination of the origins of the city of Dublin; an extremely vivid and dramatic exposition of the life both commercial and domestic of that time. It should be preserved in situ and put on permanent display. I would like to remind the Government at this point—this Government which makes such an extremely strong case for the preservation of the Irish language—that they should remember that the Wood Quay question seems to many people to be of extreme importance, no less than making a big effort to preserve our language.
The disquiet about Wood Quay's destruction started a considerably long time ago. As early as 1968 there were letters appearing in the national press and in many people's minds they were filed under the letter "C" for crank. People persevered and in 1969 the Dublin Civic Group asked that the archaeological significance of the site should be taken into account for the competition for civic offices. This is not a new feature, but the perseverance of a lot of people has meant that it has arrived in this House in the form of a debate.
There is a very strong international aspect attached to this whole question also. Senator Martin quoted from the most recent edition of the International Express who have supported this cause—A. R. Duffte of the Society of Antiquaries of London. I have here a letter from Professor Evans, the President of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London, where he states:
The illumination of the Viking occupation of Dublin is of special significance, not only for the history of Ireland, but for that of Europe as well.
He also goes on to say:
Given the obvious importance of the site and the degree of interest it has aroused internationally, it might well be possible to raise funds for the purpose of preserving that site.
He stresses the fact that time is absolutely essential to investigate every aspect of this. He finishes his letter by saying:
"It is part of the European heritage which should not be lightly sacrificed."
That letter was dated 17 November.
Senator Martin mentioned the view which has been opened up now of Christchurch Cathedral. It is one of the finest views in this city. It is the kind of vista which we have been deprived of and which should not be obscured by what he describes as the four massive monoliths. To put that kind of towered block between the people and that view would be the greatest imaginable folly. We have already destroyed too many Georgian vistas in our unthinking haste to develop.
I would like to ask the Minister of State a few questions which I hope he might be able to reply to in his speech. What advice has he received from the Statutory Advisory Body which is the standing committee of the National Monuments Advisory Council regarding the Viking site at Wood Quay? I would like to know the answer to that question. Will the old Viking earthen defence works, which are over 1,000 years old, now being dismantled, be reconstructed as is the practice across this country at Tara, Newgrange and Knowth? This is the normal practice to reconstitute these walls. Is it intended to build on the site of these earthen banks? Will the Minister be giving a licence to the builders because, since the site is now a national monument, the builders must get a licence from the Minister to build on it?
It would be one of the most beautiful and dramatic tourist attractions in Europe if we were to develop that site along the lines suggested by Senator Martin. This question needs a great deal of study which certainly should not be undertaken with a threat of bulldozers behind it. One group of consultants were asked to consider this as a tourist attraction and came up with the figure of £156,000 a year from tourist earnings from a properly developed site, with a museum on it.
I want to give Senators from both sides of the House every opportunity to join in this debate, which is the most important that I have heard in this House since I came here. I would like to remind Senators that in the winter of 1969-70, a group of architectural students occupied some houses which were almost down in Hume Street and they were fed and supported by a great many people from Dublin city. I am happy to say that I was one of the people who brought in Christmas pudding and so on on Christmas Day. Despite quite severe physical threats and intimidation in the middle of the night quite frequently, the students won their case. A very good compromise was made from an apparently immovable position. In November of 1970—later that year—the ESB offices in Merrion Street were opened. The students occupying Hume Street that previous Christmas realised that people in responsible places like the Oireachtas might behave again about Hume Street as they had behaved in 1963 when the decision was taken to tear down part of Merrion Street and create that dreadful eyesore which is in front of us every day—not a stone's throw from this House.
There were 20,000 people who marched on 23 September. It was a remarkable demonstration. I would agree with Senator Martin that surely, in this year, we can avoid that kind of confrontation. The Government surely are sufficiently in touch with the people to realise that they will not have destruction of this site. I wonder will Christmas 1978 see 20,000 Dublin people squatting in the wet and windy environs of Wood Quay. Are we going to have that kind of ludicrous display in front of the eyes of Europe? I sincerely hope not.
I hope the Senators will support this motion and show their concern for the safety of the heritage which we are talking about. A real debate can begin then in peace and with time about the future of Wood Quay.
There are many well-intended and informed people who have spoken on the Wood Quay issue. For the purpose of the misinformed I am going to speak here tonight. I and every member of my party are concerned with our ancient past and in ensuring that the relics of the past are collected and displayed. Listening to Senator Martin, one would think that the Corporation were comprised of a group of vandals who were out to destroy what remains of our ancient past. What is needed in this debate is a balance of information, which does not seem to be forthcoming. The media over a period have been very biased in relation to the Wood Quay situation.
I want to put on record, as a member of the Dublin Corporation for 22 years, my interest in Wood Quay. I did not discover Wood Quay four years ago. Wood Quay was discovered 25 years ago by the Corporation when they set about examining the site at that particular stage. They moved in and demolished all the derelict buildings in the area at that particular time when nobody else was interested. They exposed to the public Christchurch in all its splendour. If it had been another developer, what would have happened? He would have demolished, moved in and rebuilt. But the Corporation were a responsible body, more responsible than Senator Martin or other people give them credit for, because the Dublin Corporation spelled out in no uncertain terms the archaeological potential 11 years ago in 1967. They spelled it out at that time and in 1969 they invited the National Museum to carry out examinations. That was not just four years ago.
The Corporation have been acting in a responsible way over the years in relation to this ancient monument. During that period, the Corporation complied with every single request for the continuation of work on this site. At no stage did the Corporation impede work on the site. One would think, listening to the people who are concerned about Wood Quay in the last four years, that a group of vandals were endeavouring to destroy something, with no consideration at all for the area or for what has been recovered.
The Corporation have made a decision to erect offices. Following the competition and the protests they changed the design of the offices in order to ensure that one would get a substantial view of Christchurch that did not exist before the Corporation demolished the derelict buildings on the site. They indicated that they would design a museum of 10,000 square feet which is no small area, to contain all the interesting finds, the artifacts, models, maps, drawings and the old city wall. These will be retained in a museum so that every citizen will be able to visit and examine them in great depth and detail. The Corporation were very responsible in their approach to this whole problem. It is pathetic to hear people, who claim to have vast knowledge of this subject, unaware of what did happen over the past 20 years. Dublin Corporation can be proud of the part they played.
Another question is, why do we not move? Senator Martin did make one suggestion: that they should move elsewhere. Where is elsewhere? Does he know the technical problems involved? What would happen if the Corporation decided to move tomorrow and there were greater finds on the site, having spent another 25 years acquiring the site, having the necessary forms drawn up for its development and then find that they could not build there either? The protests will do one thing. They will ensure that, in this ancient city of ours, built mostly on reclaimed land, any developer in the future who finds items of historical value, and maybe greater historical value than the items that were found on Wood Quay, will disregard the situation and get the bulldozers in because he will not want to be impeded. There are many responsible developers who, like Senator Martin and others, are concerned about our ancient past and the relics of the past. But there are problems. One of the problems is protests. We are threatened with protests. I do not like to hear threats of 20,000 people and academics versus bulldozers. Common sense will prevail when people understand what exactly happened over the period and know who the responsible parties were.
A new site would mean a new design, new tenders, new contracts, and there may well be other finds on the site. The other factor is that there has been a cost to date in taxpayers' money of £3½ million plus an additional £2 million which has to be spent. This is all taxpayers' money. If we were to move from that site there would be the additional cost of doing something with Wood Quay, and who would foot the bill? The Corporation feel that their solution is the best. Senator Martin said only part of the site can be developed. The Corporation indicated that only part of the site would be developed, that there would be an open space park and a museum and offices, leaving an opportunity in the open space to continue excavations in the hope of additional finds. The space in which the new offices would be built is on the rock base that is there at the moment where there is no possibility of additional finds.
The Corporation development is in accordance with what Senator Martin has indicated. There is nothing else there. It is on a rock base, and that is the situation of the development. Again, to meet his request, he indicated he would be happy if the whole site was not covered. The whole site will not be covered. It will be landscaped as a park and will have within it the museum, as I mentioned.
Everything of value so far has been recovered. There is no indication that there is any other item of value on the site. Nothing of value remains, we are told, unless it is put back, and we can indeed put it back as they did at Tara and elsewhere. The Tara situation is a different situation. The Tara situation is away out in the country. As I said before, they will be building on bed rock, preserving for posterity what has been recovered. The people are entitled to see what has been recovered in a museum of the dimensions indicated, which would be catering for the nation as a whole. It must be remembered that, if it was not for the Corporation, it would not be available at all. In the Corporation's efforts, they have made a substantial contribution to history.
Other people indicate that York and the old Roman site in London are sites that have not been developed. Those sites have been developed following excavations. It is nothing new that, following excavations where all the items have been taken from the site, development would take place.
When we speak about another site in comparison with Wood Quay where is the other site? There are other sites in the city. There is a three-acre site but the engineering and technical problems may be immense. They have not been examined. Senator Martin suggested that if we divided up the corporation offices over the city this would be all right. If we were to say we should divide up the university complex all over the city he would be telling us we should keep them together. There is a problem in relation to the functioning of an authority, whether it is a university or a corporation. We are the largest unit in the country. We have the highest number of units of accommodation. We have the roads and all the other services. This is quite necessary. As a member of the corporation for a number of years, I know the problems of the city managers in having to send to Mountjoy Square for one officer and sending to Jervis Street for another and to Capel Street for another and to Thomas Street for another. If that is what Senator Martin thinks would add to efficiency, he must examine the situation from a quite different base.
No doubt some of these 20,000 people who protested are responsible people. Some of them were well informed, some of them misinformed and there were some sections that comprised of a crowd of chancers who did not even know where Wood Quay was. Some people who took part in the march, only wish to disrupt authority on any occasion that they can get the opportunity and they latched on to Wood Quay just as they latch on to other issues. If Senator Martin is going to lie down under the bulldozers, that is another matter, he may get some of these people to lie down with him. If he examines the situation he will see that the Corporation have done exactly what he indicated he would like to see happening. I do not see any reason for him to stay there during the Christmas period. There will be no need to bring him in Christmas pudding. I do not think he will be there anyway. We can assure him that everything that is necessary has been done.
In relation to Christchurch, the city should revamp Christchurch, clean it up and let it stand out as part of our national past. It is a historic monument. The Corporation or the Government should indicate that they are going to provide a sum of money to ensure that Christchurch is cleaned up and stands out in the manner we would all like to see to give us a glimpse of Christchurch as it was. It is an ancient monument and it is one that I would like to see revamped. I could say much more. I took quite a number of notes in relation to Senator Martin's speech. Some of them I think are not worth commenting on. I think that he has not had the opportunity of examining the Corporation's situation, because he seems to be devoid of the information that I have imparted.
Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 7 December 1978.