Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

The Bill has a number of immediately objectionable features. The lack of consultation surrounding the Bill is reprehensible, if not sinister. It is not confined to Carrickmines or even limited to what might be called crisis management in the construction of roads. It is a knee-jerk reaction to the Carrickmines debacle and a profound and radical change to the provisions of the existing National Monuments Acts of 1930 and 1994.

There is a long-standing consensus in regard to the treatment of national monuments, not merely among political parties but among the broad community of officials and experts concerned with the preservation of Ireland's archaeological and historical heritage. It is proposed in the Bill to dismantle that consensus without permitting a proper national discussion. In legislative terms, the Bill can be characterised as an act of vandalism. The removal of any safeguards beyond the whim of the Minister of the day, in the absence of expert advice, is a disgrace.

In every other legislative area there is a plethora of independently constituted expert bodies for which major areas of administration have been developed. This is the trend in domestic and European legislation. However, the Minister has chosen to go against international standards in this regard. One might have expected that for a major legislative change of this kind, the Minister, as part of the process of public consultation, would conduct a study into the manner in which other states address these issues. He will not do so, however, for the very good reason that it would expose the gross deficiencies, in the legislation.

This is an extraordinarily sensitive issue. To vest this power in the Minister alone is to issue a death warrant for national monuments. The Bill is not concerned with the protection of our archaeological heritage from the outset of the planning process. It does not address the planning process on an integrated basis. It provides no incentive for local authorities or the National Roads Authority to engage in good practice and ensure matters are dealt with correctly from the start.

Waterford is the setting for what has been described as one of the most significant finds of Viking remains in Europe — a complete Viking town. We do not know enough about it; there seems to be a cover-up about what the find consists of. The Department has this information but it seems to have been kept from the public for a long time before it came to light. If it is such an important find, the site should certainly be excavated and preserved. The rest of Europe should be allowed to share in the importance of the site. It could prove to be of significant benefit to the tourism industry in the region. I spoke to Senator Henry yesterday about what has been done with similar sites in York. The potential for the development of this site as a tourist attraction is there for all to see. The site should be developed.

Of course we want the long-awaited Waterford city bypass to proceed. However, there is no reason both projects cannot exist side by side if we adopt a common sense approach. This can be a win-win situation for Waterford and the whole country. I want to know the Minister's present position on this site. When will a decision be made? When will the Minister explain the rationale behind his decision on this most important issue?

The National Monuments Bill suggests that the Minister has a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to the protection of our heritage and national monuments. It is a reversal of the tried and trusted method of consultation, which has served the country down through the years. Nobody wants another Carrickmines situation, but this legislation is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Senator Ormonde was correct in saying this issue was all about balance. The Bill could hardly propose a less balanced approach to resolving the potential conflict between providing vital infrastructure, and protecting important heritage sites.