Michael McCarthy (Labour)

I wish to share time with Senator Ormonde.

I agree with much of what has been said on this side of the House. The legislation is controversial in what it seeks to do because it goes far beyond what is required in this instance. We are well aware of the Carrickmines issue, which is a source of great pain to the many motorists who will benefit from the successful conclusion of that stretch of the motorway. This is an era when we are used to seeing many fine road projects being concluded, not least in my area. These include the Jack Lynch Tunnel, the Watergrasshill bypass, the Rathcormac bypass, the work being carried out near Cashel and the proposed bypasses for Fermoy and Mitchelstown. This is an indication of the strength of the economy, the way the NRA has done its business and the progress made in major infrastructural projects in recent years.

These projects were necessary and very little sacrifice was made in terms of national monuments, which is not the case in regard to Carrickmines. We must take seriously the implications of the legislation. Some Senators pointed out other archaeological finds and the potential to discover more. I fear the passing of the legislation will allow for a disregard for our national heritage in cases where roadways will be favoured over monuments. It is important to remember that the Minister has responsibility not only for the environment, but also for heritage and local government. We must be aware of the Minister's title in the context of what he sets out to do.

It is the duty of the Minister to protect our heritage. Section 5 of the Bill allows the Minister to demolish, destroy or export archaeological or built heritage if he or she deems it necessary. The only caveat is that he or she must wait 14 days for a reply from the Director of the National Museum of Ireland. It is impractical and unrealistic to expect the character of any find to be assessed in detail and to satisfactory levels within 14 days. No one knew initially the extent of the Carrickmines find. I share Senator Ross's view in this context. It is fair to say the vast majority of protesters in this case were genuinely concerned about the preservation of our heritage. As Senator Ross said, very few of them were layabouts or idle. These people made a risky decision in terms of applying time and energy to their protest.

It was only after considerable time was spent assessing the find at Carrickmines that the full extent of it became obvious. To expect the nature of the find to be assessed in such a short time is totally unrealistic. It makes the political caveat meaningless because the Minister will have absolute discretion to do what he or she wants. This is the thrust of the legislation, which is why there is so much genuine concern about it. Modern technology in terms of geophysics and photography has revealed the greater depth of this type of heritage than one would have previously imagined, and these have been multiplied. The more we engage in improvement works in this area and bring on stream projects, the more we will be involved in digging, demolition and structural changes that will allow us to make these finds. There is a great fear that the passing of the legislation will provide a form of legal safeguard for the Minister to vandalise our national heritage. Priorities change dramatically in this context.

The contents of Lissadell House were sold recently without reference to its future. This is another example of where we have sacrificed heritage over commercial interests. The impact of the distribution of the contents to the highest bidder, including the heritage of the house and its land, was not taken into consideration. Likewise the house was disposed of, despite many cries to the contrary from interested parties and observers. A controversial decision of the Government was the purchase of Farmleigh House. Even though a lot of money was spent to refurbish the house, it was a good and brave decision. Perhaps future generations will appreciate the house more than we do. The pursuit of the preservation of our national heritage far outweighs commercial interests, and rightly so. There are many more buildings in this country of significant interest which are not being preserved. They are being allowed to be pursued in the private market by those who do not have the interests of the country or its heritage at heart.

While the Bill was originally intended to deal with the Carrickmines case, and the technical issue which arose from the Supreme Court decision, it will now open the floodgates for the destruction of far more of our archaeological and built heritage than was possible under the original Act. It is a bridge too far — no pun intended. We are pushing the boat out in this regard.

Reference was made to the An Bord Pleanála inspector's report. I wonder is he or she was the same inspector who gave 28 reasons why an incinerator should not be located in the lower harbour area of Cork city, and we all know what has happened since then. The board, led by a majority vote, decided to ignore this advice and grant permission for the incinerator.