Mr. James Connolly Heron:

It is interesting that the representative of Dublin City Council would refer to the Shaffrey report. If one reads the Shaffrey report, it is clear that the entire terrace should be preserved. Ms Shaffrey singles out No. 10 Moore Street at one end of the terrace that we call "The 1916 Terrace" as being worthy of preservation. She talks about Nos. 20 and 21, what was Hanlon's and is now Polonez Store, and the corner where The O'Rahilly died as worthy of preservation. We would fully support the Shaffrey report in that regard.

In answer to Senator Ó Murchú's question, there are two simple solutions. The first is that Dublin City Council should refuse to hand over Nos. 24 and 25 Moore Street, currently under its ownership and control, to any developer who proposes to demolish a terrace that Dublin City Council's policy is to preserve. That is what the city council should do immediately. The second is an even simpler solution: the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, should state that he will not consent to any proposal to invade or build on or under the designated protected area of a national monument. If he says, "No", the present planning application falls and we go back to the drawing board. Effectively, the city council can send this plan back to the drawing board, if it has the will. Certainly, the Minister can, if he has the will. There is a simple way to get back to the drawing board.

It is not as if this plan has not been changed. The current proposal has been changed three times from the infamous park in the sky proposal to where we are today. It is beyond belief that the State has not said to this developer, who is in NAMA and is on a salary of €200,000 paid out of the taxpayers' purse, to change the plan.

We do not understand it.