Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)

The Minister should be careful. The pressure is on now and we can see a struggle between the two sections of the Government. At least that is what those on the plinth are saying and they know more about this than I do. Who am I to say what is going on? I only listen to those on the plinth. We might have to endure more emergency legislation given what is going on. This Bill is not emergency legislation but is designed to get over a legal situation.

The Bill gives the Minister an opt out clause. Section 5 states that the Minister may issue directions to road authorities on whether or not to proceed with a road project upon discovery of historical artefacts, but it does not compel the Minister to make such a ruling. I find that a little strange. The Minister could decide to abandon one road project and go ahead with another. That might lead to a situation where proceeding with one road project might be more politically beneficial than proceeding with another. If I were in Government, I would lobby to have the N6 and the outer bypass in Galway sanctioned. If I were able to apply pressure, or if an Independent Deputy were able to do so, to require a project to go ahead, this Bill would give the Minister a clause to ensure that. It is a dangerous weapon.

Far be it from me to say this Minister would ever attempt to use that dangerous weapon but some Minister might in the future. In a tight situation, when dealing with different parties in Government and Independent Deputies, a Minister might use the opt out clause of not proceeding with a road project because of the discovery of artefacts and decide to go ahead with another road which would be more political advantageous, particularly in the lead up to a general election. That opt out clause for the Minister in section 5 is a dangerous provision.

Fine Gael's approach to this Bill and to the subject in general is quite clear. We do not for one moment believe that the creation of a proper road network and the preservation of our national heritage are mutually exclusive. We believe we can protect the national heritage in a manner which enables us to proceed with major works such as the M50, which is the purpose of this Bill. From that point of view, the Bill is welcome and necessary.

In a country such as Ireland, there is every chance that work on a road project will produce historically significant artefacts because of our history and heritage. The nub of the argument is whether those artefacts should be examined, excavated and moved to museums for public viewing or whether modern life should grind to a halt. Our view is that those artefacts should be removed and viewed in a museum with a small portion of them being preserved on site. If such common ground could have been arrived at between the objectors and the National Roads Authority, we would have solved that problem.

There is a strong argument that the Carrickmines site would have remained in relative obscurity had the works not taken place. There was no scramble at the beginning of the works on the M50 to preserve this site but it was only when the artefacts were subsequently discovered that its importance was realised. That is as it should be, but it seriously calls into question the agenda of those who wish to stop the development of the M50. At the beginning, genuine people seek to preserve our heritage and national monuments but later on, others jump on the band wagon because they like to protest and they like action, the excitement of it and the sense of power it gives them to be involved in such a protest. As I outlined in some other contributions, some people have other motives and use the preservation of artefacts for their own purposes.

See this speech in context